Global warming occuring faster than predicted (2 Viewers)

[impervious182]

It's quite ingenious, actually. What they did was go to all the ground stations and weather satellites and thermometers around the word and alter their readouts through Jewish mind control.

So let's summarise alexbores' stance: we're meant to believe that the current rapid and sustained change in global temperature is just a result of 'natural cycles' (which normally occur over tens of thousands of years, not 100 years) and that the industrial revolution didn't happen (please pay no attention to the astonishing elevation of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere!).[/quote]

No, you're not reading properly.

CO2 ppm have increased substantially since the industrial revolution. HOWEVER the link between warming and elevated CO2 levels is practically non-existant and decreased to a very large extent by the ocean's ability to absorb CO2.

As I said before, the facts don;t fit your theory.

CO2 has increased. Fact.

The world has cooled since 1998. Fact.

So more C02 = higher global temperatures = Lie.
​

 

[Trefoil]

Sometimes I weep for humanity when I have to explain science to Creationist nuts like alexbores.

In fact alexbores, weren't you just yesterday telling us that hermaphrodites don't exist because god only created Adam and Eve, then deleted the thread when somebody showed you this wikipedia link?

 

[impervious182]

Look really carefully at that graph. Yes, that thing at the bottom? It's called a scale bar.

Did you see that thing above the graph (a.k.a Figure 1)? It's called an explanation, written in words. You know... words?

Here's a little extract of it for you:

"Figure 1 displays the 11 year moving average - an average calculated over the year itself and five years either side."

​

11 YEAR YOU SAY? But... but... BUT!!!! That would make alexdore993 correct!?!?

That's right Kwayera, read it and weep.

 

[Kwayera]

CO2 ppm have increased substantially since the industrial revolution. HOWEVER the link between warming and elevated CO2 levels is practically non-existant and decreased to a very large extent by the ocean's ability to absorb CO2.

Uh, no. Wow, you don't understand the carbon cycle at all and carrying capacities, do you?

You're right in once respect - correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. It does here.

As I said before, the facts don;t fit your theory.

CO2 has increased. Fact.

The world has cooled since 1998. Blatant unsubstantiated lie.​

Hmm. Fixed.

 

[impervious182]

Sometimes I weep for humanity when I have to explain science to Creationist nuts like alexbores.

In fact alexbores, weren't you just yesterday telling us that hermaphrodites don't exist because god only created Adam and Eve, then deleted the thread when somebody showed you this wikipedia link?

What the hell are you talking about Trefoil? And how does this relate to global warming again?

I don't like to sink to your level, but weren't you just today wishing the burdon of HIV on someone? And mocking people who suffer from sexual abuse? (Rhetorical, because the answer is obviously - yes)

 

[Kwayera]

Did you see that thing above the graph (a.k.a Figure 1)? It's called an explanation, written in words. You know... words?

Here's a little extract of it for you:

"Figure 1 displays the 11 year moving average [/B][/U]- an average calculated over the year itself and five years either side."

​

11 YEAR YOU SAY? But... but... BUT!!!! That would make alexdore993 correct!?!?

That's right Kwayera, read it and weep.

In scientific articles, one puts the caption for a graph below the graph. Hence, this image which I was referring to (http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_linear.gif) is Figure 2.

Figure 2: Linear trends (solid lines) in the three global annual mean temperature anomaly time series over the decade 1998-2007.

Your crowing over your shit (which you're wrong about in the first place) is argument from ridicule, which is a cheap and unerudite way to play it.

 

[impervious182]

Uh, no. Wow, you don't understand the carbon cycle at all and carrying capacities, do you?

You're right in once respect - correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. It does here.



Hmm. Fixed.

'


lol, are we ever going to agree on this Kwayera? haha. I can just imagine us changing each other's posts for years and years... and going over this exact point.

 

[Kwayera]

Except my point is supported by reams of scientific data, and yours is supported by rhetoric.

I'm calling you a creationist from now on, because you're no different - and just as deserving of ridicule.

 

[Trefoil]

lol, are we ever going to agree on this Kwayera? haha. I can just imagine us changing each other's posts for years and years... and going over this exact point.

Kwayera will never agree with you while you're claiming that the world is cooling, you nong. This isn't a difference of opinion. This is you blatantly claiming scientists are don't know what they're talking about, just like you did with evolution and the Large Hadron Collider.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images..._graphs/2008/12/05/06.13.08.globalairtemp.gif

 

[impervious182]

In scientific articles, one puts the caption for a graph below the graph. Hence, this image which I was referring to (http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_linear.gif) is Figure 2.




Your crowing over your shit (which you're wrong about in the first place) is argument from ridicule, which is a cheap and unerudite way to play it.

Which graph are you looking at? Because Figure 2 quite clearly shows the temperature has decreased since 1998.

And Figure 1 is an 11 year average.


Also sorry, I also think ridicule is a cheap means of argument. In my defence, you did do it first, with your correction of my grammar and calling me ignorant.

 

[moll.]

Which graph are you looking at? Because Figure 2 quite clearly shows the temperature has decreased since 1998.

And Figure 1 is an 11 year average.


Also sorry, I also think ridicule is a cheap means of argument. In my defence, you did do it first, with your correction of my grammar and calling me ignorant.

Probs cos you were being ignorant and had bad grammar.

 

[Kwayera]

Which graph are you looking at? Because Figure 2 quite clearly shows the temperature has decreased since 1998.

And Figure 1 is an 11 year average.


Also sorry, I also think ridicule is a cheap means of argument. In my defence, you did do it first, with your correction of my grammar and calling me ignorant.

And when I was insisting that you had no idea what I was talking about, I was clearly talking about graph two, which is not an eleven year average. In every post I talked about it, I linked to graph two. Kindly cease your pride-gathering weasel words.

It does not show a decrease. It shows a (slight) increasing trend, especially since 2001.



And I corrected your grammar because you did it first. Or don't you remember this (again incorrect)? http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=3981331&postcount=12714

 

[Trefoil]

Haven't we had this discussion with alexbores before? Oh yeah, that's right!

 

[impervious182]

A few sources for you to feast your eyes on... just picked a few quickly.


Source One:

This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office…



The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office. “Absolutely not,” said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre. “If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends.”



Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would overinterpret the figure.



​

Source 2

Prepare for Cooling, not Warming

The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030. This, happening while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise, is in complete contradiction to the theory of human-induced (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW). The CBC and other die-hard AGW proponents respond by publicizing selected glacial melts and the impact of dramatic but improbable sea level rises, the only warming issues that seem to grab public attention.​

Source 3

NASA still waiting for warming.
​

NASA’s monthly temperature measurements of the troposphere (the atmosphere up to 8km from the surface) confirm it: The world’s temperatures are cooler than they were in 1998 - and have flatlined for the past five years:


In the stratosphere above, of course, the problem is global cooling:


(Thanks to reader John McLean.)​

 

[Kwayera]

News article, news article, news article and a dead link.

Try again.

 

[impervious182]

And when I was insisting that you had no idea what I was talking about, I was clearly talking about graph two, which is not an eleven year average. In every post I talked about it, I linked to graph two. Kindly cease your pride-gathering weasel words.

It does not show a decrease. It shows a (slight) increasing trend, especially since 2001.

I don't click on your links. I go to google to find them. I don't trust you alarmists, probably give me a virus. (lol. nah, but the link was to the site with all the graphs on it. If you read my posts, each time I mention the graph with the 11-year average... if you had actually read through the site, you would have been aware that I was talking about figure one.)

As for Figure 2... the graph shows that 1998 was higher than 2008... which would show that 2008,2007,2006,2005,2004,2003,2002,2001,2000 and 1999 were all cooler than 1998.

 

[Kwayera]

Keep reading.

All 3 data sets demonstrate that the anomalously hot 1998 was due to the strong El Niño of 1997/98. When ENSO-adjusted, 1998 looks much less remarkable than it does in the original data. In all 3 ENSO-adjusted data-sets, 2006 is the hottest year on record and the trend from 1998 to 2007 is that of warming.

 

[chicky_pie]

Maybe if everyone in the world stop having sex then the world would cool down a bit...

 

[impervious182]

http://www.globalwarminghype.com/

Good site this.

 

[Trefoil]

http://www.globalwarminghype.com/

Good site this.

So your final conclusion, after being thoroughly trounced by Kwayera, is to ignore her and post a link to a site devoted to claiming global warming is a conspiracy, the environmental equivalent of http://www.stormfront.org/ ?