Reply With Quote
I also loved the article that said environmental controls may be making it worse.
I knew it all along...environmentalists are killing the earth!
Air trends 'amplifying' warming
I also loved the article that said environmental controls may be making it worse.
I knew it all along...environmentalists are killing the earth!
Air trends 'amplifying' warming
You might want to reference articles taht aren't almost a decade old.
I agree the sun is a big factor, but that article is very old.
straight up question for you. A game of russian roulette.
I will put one magnum bullet in a .45 caliber revolver, spin the chamber, and give you $100 for each pull of the trigger you take, with the added stipulation that if you die, I will also kill your entire family.
Yoni, would you take me up on it?
Precautionary principle?
This is called Solar Variation Theory and almost every critical study has come to the same conclusion, although there is some correlation between sun-spot cycles and the warming/cooling of the Northern Hemisphere, there is a even stronger correlation between global-warming and the warming of the Northern Hemisphere.
But now we're talking about a correlation between solar activity, clean air initiatives, and global warming...aren't we?
Historically, during periods of decreased solar 'sun-spots' there has been a correlation between the earth cooling, and heating during periods of increased activity, these periods usually go through 10-11 year cycles. However, since 1980 the data does not correlate between sun-spot activity and the earth temperature, so scientist are convinced that there is another force at work, something stronger than 'sun-spot' activity, and many are convinced the cause is global-warming.
Yeah, right!
Then we find out there is no correlation between global warming and industrialization...(the supposed "man-made" component to global warming).
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
So, tell me. If the earth went through a global warming period before industrialization had time to have an affect (1918-1940) and then the earth went through a global cooling period during the years the earth's civilizations were belching out global warming "precursors" at a record pace (1940-1965); and then the earth went through a global warming period after many pollution controls had been ins uted (1970-1998); and now, the earth had pretty much stayed at a stable temperature for 7 years (1998-2005)...what does that tell you?
I'll tell you what it tells me, humans have absolutely no affect on global climate. Period. Whatever is cooling and warming the earth, it ain't us.
The whole thesis of your article could have been reduced to this one simple sentence...Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office.
Historical global temperature for the last 2000 years
Source:Wikipedia
Ah, Wikipedia!
Define anomaly as used in the first graph and then, give me the sources (I'm assuming they're represented by the colored lines) for the recorded temperatures over the past 2,000 years.
I think the Brits have a word for your post...yeah, that's right...rubbish.
Look, I have graphs too!
Well, I don't care what you think of the data supplied by Wikipedia, agree with it or not, I'm just here to present the facts as we currently know then in a the most unbiased and concise approach that I can. There is also a word for people like you who can’t fight fact with facts - charlatans.
I guess you missed my graph that disputed the wikipedia version.
You can't argue with Nbadan and his use of the wiki. After all, dude uses a study about hurricanes and their possible reactions to climate change 100 years from now to proove Katrina was caused by man.
Only if this is 1951. Which it might be for you.
You can't argue with Nbadan and his use of the wiki. After all, dude uses a study about hurricanes and their possible reactions to climate change 100 years from now to proove Katrina was caused by man.
And you use oned study by a likely partisan hack with a grudge to prove otherwise. Come back when you have something better than that.
Before busting out big charts, you may want to learn to read them. That graph goes on into the current millenium. I don't know how good it is, but perhaps you could read it correctly at least?
ROFL
And you use oned study by a likely partisan hack with a grudge to prove otherwise. Come back when you have something better than that.
owned
I believe my charts cover the last 20 years more accurately.
Go read the thread again, not only can you not read graphs you can't read. Chris Landsea never ran a study, and I used several studies by varius (and well respected scientists) in my posts. In addition, I actually READ the studies in order to gain an understanding Mr. Wiki Copy And Paste.
And you use oned study by a likely partisan hack with a grudge to prove otherwise. Come back when you have something better than that.
Well isn't that nice.
Indeed, Dan is the king of owning people with incorrect and inaccurate information.
thats exactly what whottt would say
Gee, could it be we are going into an ice age. Could it also be that man
hasn't got a blasted thing to do with Mother Nature, she does what
she wants to. Now isn't that interesting. Man is puny when it comes to
the earth as a whole. Now where are they going to get their money from?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
