Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 24    Average: 3.9/5]
130 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8231
Rating: 3.9
Category: Science
Date: 09/12/12 04:51 PM

130 Responses to NASA Animation Of Global Warming

  1. Profile photo of kitteh9lives
    kitteh9lives Female 70 & Over
    8033 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm
    Link: NASA Animation Of Global Warming - NASA illustrates the rise in global temperatures over the past 131 years, from 1880-2011. Is it getting hot in here?
  2. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 5:06 pm
    Its a normal, natural cycle that happens not only on Earth but in every planet
  3. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 5:09 pm
    Ha, I knew it. Looks like it cooled down in the 1970s. I remember people talking of a "new Ice Age" back then. This means nothing.
  4. Profile photo of Pexe
    Pexe Male 30-39
    4 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 5:21 pm
    1880? Right after the end of the little ice age in 1850? Little ice age which was preceded by the medieval warm period in about 1200? which was then preceded by a drat load of climactic, mostly unexplained, changes before it? Damn, weather seems to be going nuts in the past 4 gigayears.
  5. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 5:22 pm
    I remember people talking of a "new Ice Age" back then.

    You don`t remember scientists doing that. You remember reporters doing that. Not the same thing at all.

    Scientist: Preliminary results indicate overall cooling, which is interesting and warrants further study.

    Reporter: SCIENTISTS SAY NEW ICE AGE IS COMING VERY SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That`s how "science" reporting worked back then (and usually still does outside of specialist websites).
  6. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm
    Its a normal, natural cycle that happens not only on Earth but in every planet

    a) Not in this timeframe.

    b) Even if it was (and it probably isn`t), the effects are still the same. It doesn`t matter in the end if you fall out of a window onto railings and die or if you`re pushed out a window onto railings and die. You`re just as dead either way. What you need to do is change the railings or the window (so it doesn`t open as much) or don`t lean out of the window.
  7. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 5:30 pm
    Little ice age which was preceded by the medieval warm period in about 1200?

    We`re already well past the level of the medieval warm period (which wasn`t global - it was basically northern Europe).

    There`s evidence of natural causes for the LOCAL warming known as the medieval warm period. No such evidence exists for current GLOBAL warming.

    So that`s not the same thing either.
  8. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 5:53 pm
    I work from home 4 days a week so I am doing my part by not driving as much. But to be honest I am doing it to save money not the planet.
  9. Profile photo of JoexBro
    JoexBro Male 18-29
    540 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    Do you notice how the temperature changes are sporadic until the effects of the industrial revolution start to become apparent and even more concentrated in the 60`s when people started to throw out those air conditioners with "freeons" in them. The earth may have a natural cycle, but we are sure speeding it up. And an ice age would take much longer then a few years to produce. First the world will get much hotter, with water drying up in some areas as its already doing and the ice blocks that are arctic and antarctica will start to melt more, as they are already doing. Rising sea waters, along with a seemingly "hotter" sun caused my holes in the ozone will produce much more moisture in the air. What does moisture in the air do? Creates clouds. The cloud cover will become so massive that it will then block out a lot of the suns rays. Thus the earth will begin a periodical cool, and all that moisture will return to the earth and stay there frozen once more. As more a
  10. Profile photo of Pexe
    Pexe Male 30-39
    4 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:02 pm
    There`s evidence of natural causes for the LOCAL warming known as the medieval warm period. No such evidence exists for current GLOBAL warming.

    Look dude we have a load more definition and data for the past 100 years to track local or global changes, particularly after the whole global warming craze.
    Besides the weather was a lot warmer at some points in time (some in the pleistocene, some in the pliocene and definitely hotter before that).
    I don`t think this whole global warming thing is bad. Helps reducing the amount of poo we`ve been dumping in the past 200 years but is just a bit too egocentric to me
  11. Profile photo of JoexBro
    JoexBro Male 18-29
    540 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:02 pm
    By this time most of the possible left over human race will have gone from this planet or died here. Different kinds of species will be born from the ruin and another ice age will be present. Eventually as more of that moisture is rid from the sky and is trapped on land, the sun will again begin to slowly warm the planet. Giving way for more life and possibly some more human like creatures that will f*ck it all up again because no one ever learns sh*t. This total process probably happens over millions of years.
  12. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:03 pm
    "You don`t remember scientists doing that. You remember reporters doing that. Not the same thing at all."

    Um, I said "people"... people were talking about it. I was like 6 or 7 years old at the time. My point is that it meant nothing then and this means nothing now.
  13. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1068 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:03 pm
    @markust123 for a second I thought your post was a get rich at home advertisement
  14. Profile photo of JoexBro
    JoexBro Male 18-29
    540 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:05 pm
    Theres pieces missing from my comments it seems, maybe the nsa is trolling here
  15. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    It`s pretty obvious that the world is heating up, and it`s also pretty obvious that our waste is contributing to this.
  16. Profile photo of HappyLegs
    HappyLegs Male 30-39
    8 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:25 pm
    So it was global cooling, but that fell through, then it was global warming, but they had to change that because they predicted category 5 hurricanes every year post Katrina,that NY would be under water by now, and some how earthquakes were affected by temperature, now it`s climate change because they can`t predict anything, due to the fact their science involves "fudge factors." The whole man made global warming thing is driven by politics, which makes the whole argument smell like sh**.
  17. Profile photo of Jakk88
    Jakk88 Male 18-29
    45 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:37 pm
    Global warming is real, it`s just.... I don`t really care.
  18. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:46 pm
    Where are the skeptics? OldOllie? CJ? 5Cats? Al Gores not such an idiot afterall huh?
  19. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:49 pm
    I hesitate to enter into a discussion where it is obvious (reading the preceding comments) that a lot of the participants are shooting from the hip based on hearsay they`ve picked up from talk radio or from a tailgate party somewhere.

    But I`ll offer just a few items for some of you to think over. The science on anthropogenic climate change (aka, man-caused global warming) really came of age in the mid-1990s. That`s when sufficient computing power became available to most researchers to allow them to run sophisticated models based on the research of the preceding 10 years. By 2000, virtually every climatologist was convinced that AGW was real based on the models: they ran those simulations upside down and sideways, with literally thousands of different scenarios, and the only models that were working were those which considered man-emitted CO2 a serious factor.

    (cont`d next comment)
  20. Profile photo of CoyoteKing
    CoyoteKing Male 18-29
    2988 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:49 pm
    its hard to tell what is really going on. anything you see in blue means its actually colder than it was before and throughout the whole video there is a good amount of blue. if temperatures where only going up then you would see nothing but white or yellow to red colors.

    also i wonder on the technology of taking temperature readings and accuracy and data during time from 1880 til now. also there seems to be a huge increase in yellow-red only starting around 1990 til present, has the accuracy and reliability in our readings possibly become more reliable than past readings were? this info would make this video easier to really understand whats going on
  21. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3145 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 6:58 pm
    That`s a very good point CoyoteKing.

    I`m still skeptical of global warming due to man, especially with that cooling session during the 1970`s.
    Did industry just drop? Did absolutely no one drive? I know there was an oil shortage, but was that really enough to drop the temperature?
  22. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:01 pm
    (cont`d)

    If you watch this video again, note how there is a rough balance of blues and oranges until about 1990. Then there is a preponderance of orange. On a global scale, the warming of the past 20 years is unprecedented in the time man`s been on Earth. And all the natural cycles that have been exhaustively studied work on a timeframe that is measured in tens of thousands of years. To say what`s occurring is somehow related to Earth`s ice age cycles is like seeing a Formula-1 car rush by and responding, "Wow, those Galapagos turtles are really something, aren`t they?" There`s no mistaking the two things.

    I encourage anyone interested in this topic to pick up a copy of "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" by Michael Mann. It was just published. I`m about 25% through it and it`s excellent at explaining the MASSIVE amount of research that`s been conducted over the past 60 years.
  23. Profile photo of HappyLegs
    HappyLegs Male 30-39
    8 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:03 pm
    "By 2000, virtually every climatologist was convinced that AGW was real based on the models"

    That`s not a true statement, that`s a political statement because the media and those with a political agenda willingly ignore all the scientists that disagree with man made global warming. There is not a consensus, only a consensus among those who wish to use global warming to push their political agenda upon others.

    Scientifically speaking, man made global warming is a hypothesis, it doesn`t qualify as a theory because it is not testable nor predictable.
  24. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:04 pm
    Um, I said "people"... people were talking about it. My point is that it meant nothing then and this means nothing now.

    And my point is that your point is wrong because you are basing it on a false equivalence.

    An analogy:

    Scenario 1: A random person who knows nothing about you at all but who is desperate to attract attention to themselves tells you that you have cancer on the basis that they claim they overheard someone at a hospital saying that many people have cancer.

    Scenario 2: An oncologist who has carried out scans of you and examined the results tells you that you have cancer.

    Would you attach equal weight to those two things?

    Both are people talking about the same thing. *According to your argument* that means both are equally likely to be correct.
  25. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:09 pm
    Do we really have to have this debate here every week on IAB?

    I seriously have better things to do. So I`ll just reiterate what the real provable facts are.

    #1 CERN has determined that clouds have a lot more influence over our climate than once thought.

    #2 We are supposed to heading into a period of increased solar activity, but that activity seems to be delayed for some reason.

    #3 This years warming was due to a shift from an `La Nina` weather pattern to a `El Nino` weather pattern.

    #4 Earth has been a lot warmer in human history, when CO2 levels were much lower, proving CO2 has little to do with warming.

    #5 More CO2 means plants grow better, plants convert CO2 to Oxygen and sugars that the plant uses for food.

    #6 Water vapor a more harmful `greenhouse gas` than CO2, Don`t see anyone suggesting a `Water Vapor Tax` do we?

    #7 Mars is warming at the same rate Earth is, proving that our sun has a large influence on
  26. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:10 pm
    Coyote and others,

    Yeah, the colours are confusing, because no-where does it explain what they mean. I`m 99% sure they`re the variation in temps compared to the 1951-1980 average. Blue being colder than that average, white being the same, and red being hotter.
  27. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:12 pm
    Anyone who cites "global cooling" as a reason to dismiss AGW is willfully ignorant of history and science. "Global cooling" was a very brief theory, quickly disproven and then disavowed by the scientists who promoted the idea. If you think that a slight cooling trend disproves global warming, then you also do not understand that the climate fluctuates, while still moving at an upward average temperature trend.
  28. Profile photo of HappyLegs
    HappyLegs Male 30-39
    8 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:14 pm
    "I encourage anyone interested in this topic to pick up a copy of "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" by Michael Mann"

    I could encourage anyone who wants to cut through the bull to look up "climategate"
  29. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3145 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:15 pm
    1916 is another interesting year.
    This is when everything starts warming. But why?
    The industrial revolution was pretty much over for now 1st world countries, but Africa is where it`s heating up.

    Is Africa industrializing at this time?
    Is the CO2 drifting from industrial nations to Africa?
  30. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:16 pm
    lol @ CJ, Yeah Mars has global warming too so the Suns getting hotter.. If that`s the logic you live by your disability is your intelligence.
  31. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:25 pm


    #8 Volcanoes, Like Mt. Pinatubo, have produced more pollution, in one eruption, than mankind has ever produced.

    #9 2/10ths of one degree average temperature rise in the last 50 years is miniscule and not worth worrying about.

    #10 The people pushing the AGW agenda are in it to profit from it. Carbon credits, Book sales, Government grant money, Lecture fees and film profits all point to this being a huge scam.

    #11 AGW scientists own e-mails admit to using "tricks" to "hide the decline". Their own slanted math doesn`t work so they`ve rigged all their models to look like "Hockey Sticks".

    #12 In the 1970s climate scientists were just as certain that we were headed toward another "Ice Age".
  32. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm
    CrakrJak:

    #1 This isn`t true for a start.

    #2 Solar activity doesn`t account for the current warming

    #3 No it wasn`t. La Nina to El Nino effects global weather patterns but it actually means going from warmer to cooler water in one spot of the ocean. Net heat content of the Earth has increased.

    #4 This doesn`t prove that at all. Other factors probably lessened CO2s effects or the sun was cooler, etc. If all other things are equal, increased CO2 will increase the temperature.

    #5 Not exactly. More CO2 means warmer temps, and past a certain temperature and climate plants don`t like it so much. There aren`t many plants in the Sahara.
  33. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm
    Crakrjak:


    #6 We`re not putting more water vapor into the air. We are putting more CO2 in the air. Water Vapor is quickly precipitated out. CO2 is not. Although, warmer temps will allow for more water vapor into the air, and that is an indirect effect of global warming. So it could be making it worse later on.

    #7 No it isn`t.
  34. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:28 pm
    @HappyLegs: If you want to get a sense of what "Climategate" was all about--who did what and how and for what purposes--I encourage you to watch this video and read Michael Mann`s book on the incident.

    If you`re simply repeating the story line that was sold by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, your strings are being pulled.
  35. Profile photo of insane_ai
    insane_ai Male 30-39
    736 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:29 pm
    Millenia of global warming and cooling records in geology mean nothing in the world of scare tactic, politically manipulated `science`. Never mind that the primary source of our heat, the sun also fluctuates its intensity.

    Again, Madest, piss off. Your left wing propaganda and empty arguments are insulting to those with actual intelligence.
  36. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:29 pm
    CrakrJak:

    #8 This is definitely not true. Look it up.

    #9 This is not true either. A fraction of a degree C is a large increase. 4C is the difference between now and the coldest ice age. The average temp of the Earth is about 17C.

    #10 No. Just because you don`t like how some profit from it doesn`t mean the science isn`t sound. Plus the profits from that are easily dwarfed by those of companies like Shell, BP, and Exxon.

    #11 This isn`t true. The emails were found to be nothing and there was nothing wrong with them.

    #12 They weren`t. They were still arguing for global warming then.

    You haven`t researched anything, have you CrakrJak?
  37. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:33 pm
    HappyLegs:
    "That`s not a true statement, that`s a political statement because the media and those with a political agenda willingly ignore all the scientists that disagree with man made global warming. There is not a consensus, only a consensus among those who wish to use global warming to push their political agenda upon others."

    What? 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists. That`s a good consensus.

    "Scientifically speaking, man made global warming is a hypothesis, it doesn`t qualify as a theory because it is not testable nor predictable. "

    What? AGW can`t make predictions? It`s doing so right now. Also, it`s 100% testable and falsifiable.

    I don`t know what you`re smoking.
  38. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:36 pm
    Madest, Apparently you`re too ignorant to know about the solar cycle. The last maunder minimum was responsible for the lower-than-average global temperatures during the late 17th and most of the 18th century. The winters were so cold that the Delaware river routinely froze over, as evidenced by the painting of `George Washington Crossing the Delaware`.

    If you can`t admit that was scientific fact, that the sun has a huge influence on our climate, then perhaps you should exit this discussion before you prove your stupidity further.
  39. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:42 pm
    mesovortex: Denying every fact I presented just makes you look like a eco-nutjob. Go ahead, keep drinking the AGW kool-aid if you want, but you will eventually realize you`ve been horns waggled into enriching a bunch of scam artists.
  40. Profile photo of Jakk88
    Jakk88 Male 18-29
    45 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:46 pm
    I have a feeling that the solution to global warming shouldn`t be preventative.
  41. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:56 pm
    Because.. in the 1800`s we accurately measured global temperatures via NASA...

    please
  42. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm
    @Elkingo: Newsflash: MERCURY-IN-GLASS THERMOMETER INVENTED IN 1714.

    Just thought I`d bring this to your attention because apparently you missed it.
  43. Profile photo of penguinazul
    penguinazul Female 18-29
    471 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    It`s getting hot in here, so take off all your clothes.
  44. Profile photo of HappyLegs
    HappyLegs Male 30-39
    8 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    @squrlz "If you`re simply repeating the story line that was sold by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, your strings are being pulled."

    Actually I was a student at Penn State at the time of climategate in an engineering field, I looked at the code, and I would have failed if I generated data like that.

    The rings on trees, scientifically sound. Ice, similar concept, sure. What about the predictions based on all this evidence? The man made global warming promoters are so sure they are right, but from a scientific standpoint, based upon their predictions, they are wrong. I`ve seen models that show my house should have been under water by now, yet I`m hours away from the coast, and those next to the coast are still fine. They had a hypothesis, they were wrong, can`t prove their point, yet I`m still suppose to believe them. That is not science, that politics.
  45. Profile photo of antagonizer
    antagonizer Male 18-29
    509 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    LOLz There are still people that disbelieve that global warming isn`t at least mostly man made. Right up there with Santa, the tooth fairy and god. And did I actually read a comment on how co2 is good for plants?? maybe so, but CFC`s Dioxins and Organochlorines aren`t. You people should know better than to take your science from Fox news.
  46. Profile photo of HappyLegs
    HappyLegs Male 30-39
    8 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:13 pm
    @mesovortex\

    "What? 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW exists. That`s a good consensus."

    That`s a political statement. 97% don`t agree. 97% of people don`t agree on anything, never mind something that has politics so inter-woven in it`s existence.

    You`re right though, it is falsifiable, because their predictions have been so wrong.
  47. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:21 pm
    mesovortex: Denying every fact I presented just makes you look like a eco-nutjob. Go ahead, keep drinking the AGW kool-aid if you want
    Crakrjak, him denying your "facts" doesn`t make him look like an eco-nutjob at all. To me, that looks like a scientific challenge. Isn`t that fair? Refute them, don`t resort to the cheap old kool-aid drinker insult.
  48. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    @HappyLegs: A few questions for you.

    You say you "looked at the code." *What* code? There is no "code" behind the hockey stick graph, just data. If you`re talking about code related to one of the computer models, which one? There are literally thousands of models, most of which are running on supercomputers at NASA`s Climate Center and NASA`s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

    Incidentally, I am a software developer at an investment firm with over $2T (that`s trillion) of assets under management. That`s been my day job for over a decade. So I know just a tiny bit about computer code. This code that you looked at: What language was it written in, if I may ask? You must have written a LOT of code to "take a look" at a supercomputer model and quickly determine the data it generates is so bad.

    So, I`m impressed. I guess.
  49. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    "MERCURY-IN-GLASS THERMOMETER INVENTED IN 1714."

    How accurate were they, and were they on every corner of the globe by the 1880`s?

    I question the validity of cowboys and Indians measuring scientific data.
  50. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    @Elkingo: Most of them were extremely accurate because they were calibrated by using ice slush (= 0 deg C or 32 deg F) and the boiling point of water (= 100 deg C or 212 deg F) as reference points.

    By the 1880s, the time this animation begins, temperatures were being recorded all over the globe: by ships at sea, by polar explorers, and by meteorological societies on every continent.

    Here are two small anecdotes that might help you get a sense of the times. Thomas Jefferson kept a daily logbook of the high and low temperatures at Monticello in Virginia for over a decade. That was around 1800. Similarly, Benjamin Franklin was taking temperature readings throughout his life in the 1700s. Franklin even submerged mercury-in-glass thermometers into the Atlantic during his voyages to France. That`s how he discovered the Gulf Stream.
  51. Profile photo of HappyLegs
    HappyLegs Male 30-39
    8 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 8:55 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale

    2 or 3 years ago, 1000 chars would not have been enough to answer your question. Interestingly, I googled "hockey stick graph" and I got wikipedia or political supporters and skeptics, which goes back to my original point that this is a political issue and has nothing to do with science.

    If you like, my next day off from work and school is around Christmas, but I can probably find time to answer your question in the next week(hopefully). Are you willing to wait? I don`t have the time or energy to try and convert a liberal at the moment.
  52. Profile photo of VirtualParty
    VirtualParty Male 18-29
    787 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 9:06 pm
    Nasa study and you people are arguing the validity? Go read the article that accompanied the video.

    The colors are based on averages that`s why it`s so red at north and southern pole. Bye polar bears. :[
  53. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 9:06 pm
    @HappyLegs: I asked a few simple questions that could have been answered in fewer than 10 words, such as "It was the Hansen 2004k Model, written in Python."

    Instead, you wrote a 101 word response that avoids the questions and tells me you don`t have time to answer them. Okay then! ~scratches head~

    Sorry, friend, but it`s transparent: You`re all bluster.
  54. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 9:25 pm
    @Penguinazul: You first. =^.^=
  55. Profile photo of HappyLegs
    HappyLegs Male 30-39
    8 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale

    I can give you bulls***, but I won`t, unlike the man made global warming community. When I`m asked for evidence, as you have, I take the time and energy to research the truth. I`ve done it before (concerning man made global waring and other fields), but I don`t make a career of lying to people, only accepting the truth. If it were left to pure science, man made global warming is more extreme than traveling faster than the speed of light. Why? Because man made global warming is pure politics, science is science. Al Gore didn`t get the Nobel in a scientific field, did he? Nope, purely politics.
  56. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    @elkingo: Skip to 7:20 in this video for your answer about the history of thermometer measurements: Video

    There is one thermometer mentioned that has been recording the daily temperature since 1846.
  57. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 9:35 pm
    "#10 The people pushing the AGW agenda are in it to profit from it. Carbon credits, Book sales, Government grant money, Lecture fees and film profits all point to this being a huge scam."

    This is also one of the dumbest arguments ever. Do you know how hard it is for scientists to get grant money? Why would a scientist toil in competition for grant money when he could just get a steady income working for an oil company, denying AGW? And why would Richard Muller take money from the Koch Brothers to conduct an independent climate study, only to change his mind after looking at the data and admit AGW?
  58. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 9:40 pm
    @HappyLegs: Allow me to paint the big picture for you.

    Hundreds of climatologists since the 1950s have been publishing a mountain of peer-reviewed science on the topic of AGW. Al Gore took a college course taught by one of the researchers in the field and was impressed by the science and its implications.

    Decades later, Gore made a number of popular presentations on AGW in the form of lectures, a book, and a movie.

    But Gore is not a scientist, nor is he the embodiment of AGW research. Attacking him doesn`t invalidate decades of serious science conducted by hundreds of climatologists.

    Another way of putting it:
    1. First there was scientific research.
    2. Then there were reactions to the conclusions that the science was pointing to.
    3. The subject then became highly politicized.

    #2 and #3 are responses to #1. Because #2 and #3 exist does not invalidate the science of #1. Yet you seem to think they do.
  59. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 9:59 pm
    HappyLegs:
    "You`re right though, it is falsifiable, because their predictions have been so wrong."

    They predicted warming. It`s warming.

    Seems like they were right to me.
  60. Profile photo of HappyLegs
    HappyLegs Male 30-39
    8 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:01 pm
    @Squrlz4Sale

    Ugh, I`ve got to get up in like 5 hours and don`t have time for this, so this is my last response, till maybe Sunday night.

    1.) the scientific research was completely wrong, think hypothesis that can`t be predicted nor tested (well the predictions were completely wrong, if not I should by typing underwater right now)
    2.) the reactions fitted a political agenda
    3.) the subject was highly politicized for long before A Gore.

    I bring up A Gore because he made millions off of global warming. We would not be discussing this if science were left to science, but we are because a few politicians realized they could make money off it.

    I think ur a smart dude, politicians aren`t smart, just manipulative. Wake up bro, I think you`re smarter than them. Just throw politics out of man made GW, and be honest, then tell me what you get. Subtract politics from all the data..... that`s all I ask and be honest.
  61. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:03 pm
    "How accurate were they, and were they on every corner of the globe by the 1880`s?

    I question the validity of cowboys and Indians measuring scientific data. "

    They use way more than that to determine past climate. They use things like ice cores, tree ring data, and other observations to determine climate. They don`t need a continuous thermometer in one place for 250 years to determine the climate of that area for 250 years.

    It`s called forensic science. We haven`t had seismometers for that long but we can guess with great accuracy the size of the 1811-1812 New Madrid Earthquakes as well as earthquakes that happened 500+ years ago.
  62. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:11 pm
    This graph says it all. Global temperature is cyclical and even +.34 deg. C from average is still well within normal range.


    The GISS model predictions from the year 2000, projected we would be between +.6 to +1.0 deg. C over average and all three of them have been proven wrong.

    It`s time the hysteria and scaremongering end. AGW simply isn`t happening.
  63. Profile photo of keith2
    keith2 Male 18-29
    2587 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:27 pm
    Look at your graph, and then re-write your comment. If the 0.0 represents the mean temp, any idiot can see the standard deviation from the mean has been on the high side almost the entire time since `01. That is NOT normal.
  64. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    CrakrJak: Your graph doesn`t "say it all"--it says "junk science."

    Instead of getting garbage charts from websites like "Global Warming Is a Scam.com" (paid for by your friends at ExxonMobil), how about getting your charts from NASA? You know, the people who put the Curiosity rover on Mars. Just an idea.

    Oooh, look! Here`s one.



    Note: All of the data and the methodology behind the above chart are available on
    NASA`s website.
  65. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:33 pm
    CrakrJak:
    Two problems with that graph
    1) It doesn`t go back far enough. It`s cherry picking dates - yet it still shows a clear warming trend
    2) The `sine wave` trend line that was added looks like it`s just something added with a parabolic curve in Excel. That is hardly scientific because it`s not going to show you a true trend. A better way would be to take a monthly trend and graph it - but oh wait the graph already does that and it shows a clear rise in temperatures.
  66. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:35 pm
    "1.) the scientific research was completely wrong, think hypothesis that can`t be predicted nor tested (well the predictions were completely wrong, if not I should by typing underwater right now) "

    How was it wrong? They got the data first. They made sure (and keep making sure) that the data is accurate. Conclusions do change on a micro level all the time - esp. in terms of how much warming we`re going to see and that we`re seeing now.

    But the bottom line is:
    1) The earth IS warming
    2) No natural process is known that could account for it
    3) Manmade CO2 can account for it, and does
  67. Profile photo of lukeforv123
    lukeforv123 Male 18-29
    1053 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:38 pm
    Still nice and cool in northern california!
  68. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5385 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:41 pm
    I still remain skeptical of the methods used to measure accurately in 1880, but I have a rather more important observation.

    1880-2012 = 132 years

    132 divided by 4.54 billion (earth`s age) = 2.90748899e-8/100 % of time.

    How do you make conclusions on that percentage of time measured?
  69. Profile photo of SnoopyBG
    SnoopyBG Male 18-29
    653 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:46 pm
    There`s no question that there is warming. The real question is what is causing it. Maybe the fact that the heater of the earth is getting hotter (the sun dummasses)?
  70. Profile photo of Tatung42
    Tatung42 Male 30-39
    46 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:46 pm
    Interesting article here:

    97.4% of expert climate scientists (compared to only 58% of the general public) think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature.
  71. Profile photo of SnoopyBG
    SnoopyBG Male 18-29
    653 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:51 pm
    @mesovortex
    "But the bottom line is:
    1) The earth IS warming
    2) No natural process is known that could account for it
    3) Manmade CO2 can account for it, and does"


    1.Right
    2.Wrong Except the sun maybe? Earth has been far warmer in recorded history.
    3.Wrong Who told you so? Al Gore ? The largest amount by far of greenhouse gas is water vapor.
  72. Profile photo of SnoopyBG
    SnoopyBG Male 18-29
    653 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:52 pm
    @Tatung42

    97.4% of experts want to keep their job.
  73. Profile photo of Tatung42
    Tatung42 Male 30-39
    46 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 10:56 pm
    You would be one of the 42% that the article speaks about :-)
  74. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 11:06 pm
    @Elkingo: If you`re interested, I`d suggest watching the documentary that FoolsPrussia linked to. It`s in 3 parts, all free to watch on YouTube. The 1st part is right here.

    In the meantime, here`s an incomplete answer to your question. Ice cores go back tens of thousands of years. They contain trapped bubbles of air that, when analyzed, allow us to chart CO2 over millennia. Similarly, temperature proxies exist (tree rings, lake sediments, stalactite growth, coral reef growth) that give us an accurate picture of temperatures over those same millennia.

    Combining the two data sets shows that the recent rise in temperatures since 1900 is historically unprecedented and is attended by historically unprecedented CO2 levels. Over the past 20 years, increasingly sophisticated computer models have demonstrated a strong correlation.
  75. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 11:16 pm
    @Elkingo et al: Before the predictable response "You`re wrong--the Earth HAS TOO been warmer before!" comes in, let me spell it out.

    I said "historically unprecedented" (meaning since man has been on the planet), not "geologically unprecedented." Prior to man`s arrival, the Earth has had an atmosphere with more CO2 than now and has been warmer than now. The Devonian Era, for instance (aka, The Age of Fish). But I ask you: Do we really want to turn the clock back to a time when the planet was a steamy hothouse, most of the land was covered with water, and crocodiles lived in Antarctica?

    If you think man can adapt to *that* kind of environment, I suppose we might--provided 90% of us die off and the rest of us grow gills.
  76. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    September 12, 2012 at 11:25 pm
    Looks like a cycle to me.

    Also, I like warm weather. HOORAY!
  77. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 12:20 am
    Auburnjunky`s Facebook profile pic, circa 2042. (I keed, I keed!)

  78. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 12:22 am
    Blame McDonalds. Cows are huge CO2 polluters way more than man. let it go, Earth will survive, just the parasitic human wont, all good to me
  79. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 12:29 am
    @FerdyFred: Cows = methane, not CO2.

    Hmmmm. Is there some way I could get paid a dollar for every bit of misinformation I correct here on AGW? It would pay for a nice car by now, I think.
  80. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 12:39 am
    Squrlz4Sale
    That makes everything alright then
  81. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 12:40 am
    Just happens methane is 20 times more efficient than CO2 at trapping heat
  82. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 12:45 am
    But thank you for the heads up,
    I would give you a dollar to put towards a car but I feel that would promote global warming :-)
  83. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 12:50 am
    @FerdyFred: You mistyped the sentence, "Thanks for the correction." P.S.- A Prius or Volt would do just fine, thank you. =^.^=
  84. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 12:54 am
    @Squrlz4Sale
    Ha ha, respect sir ;_)
  85. Profile photo of beternal
    beternal Male 18-29
    2589 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 1:51 am
    It`s ok, when the gases build up enough we`ll execute the Sontaran-ATMOS *igniting the sky* strategy :-)
  86. Profile photo of Vexys
    Vexys Male 18-29
    74 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 2:27 am
    What still baffles me to this day is that whilst we argue about whether its anthropogenic or not, the earth is still warming in an unprecedented manner and in turn this is going to have a big impact on how we live our lives, from the environments we live in to our food sources.

    Regardless of whether we caused it we need to understand why its happening and in the mean time if it means we reduce our emissions, be it CO2 or methane and generally clean up our act, whats the harm?

    Surely we all wish to preserve some aspect of the world we know. People saying drat it its not real, ill carry on doing what im doing. Why?!? You cant want to live in a concrete world with a fog similar to London`s in the industrial revolution, with no wildlife or nature anywhere
  87. Profile photo of New_Guy
    New_Guy Male 30-39
    406 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 2:34 am
    I would like to know what effect the shifting in the poles have to do with the global warming? if any!
    Also what about the solar flares that are happening more often? if that`s a fact or just some random thing i heard?
    Before pull get all "why you so stupid new guy" I just wanna say "I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious."
    Albert Einstein
  88. Profile photo of tsiemens
    tsiemens Male 30-39
    515 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 3:01 am
    Its called climate change now not global warming, that way they can charge a carbon tax even if we start global cooling next. The whole thing is ridiculous and is sensationalized to make someone a lot of cash in the future
  89. Profile photo of kinky_afr0
    kinky_afr0 Male 18-29
    583 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 3:36 am
    how come its fuqing freezing in Scotland right now then??
  90. Profile photo of thubanstar
    thubanstar Female 50-59
    815 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 3:43 am
    Vexys

    That`s extremely sensible of you. My boyfriend is getting his Ph.D. in Environmental Science. We live in Florida... he does not work for some "big company" that stands to make money from this.

    According to his research, pretty much EVERYTHING that is near the coast on both sides of the state will be standing in water 100 years from now. Our coast will alter radically... And yeah, we can sit here and debate, meanwhile, the water WILL rise.
  91. Profile photo of New_Guy
    New_Guy Male 30-39
    406 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 3:58 am
    Vexys gr8 point but I think that most of the people hear that are able to do anything are doing it. The rest of us nobodys can talk poo until we get a solution from thubanstar boyfriend.
    But I do like the idea of a clean earth so recycle pls.
  92. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 6:11 am
    131 years? Is it the 2070s already? CO2 emissions from industry only started to become significant in the 1940s, so if the world has been warming for 131 years it must be!

    Unless, of course, the world warms and cools without human influence, which can`t possibly be true because a bunch of "scientists" who have only been caught lying a few dozen times say it isn`t true.
  93. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 6:21 am
    Vexys

    "...the earth is still warming in an unprecedented manner ..."

    What makes you think that? Warming over the last 250 years is far from unprecedented. Given that it started in the Little Ice Age, it is far from abnormal.

    Tatung42

    You do realise you are quoting from a masters degree thesis, don`t you? You do realise that for a given definition of the word "significant" almost everyone agrees, on both sides of the debate?

    That survey has been debunked for years now, in fact it was debunked in the thesis appendix in the comments from the respondents to the survey, several of whom pointed out the meaningless questions. Then trimming down from those 3000+ responses to 79 people meant that the 97.5% statistic (not 97.4%) represented only 77 individuals of over 10,000 surveyed.
  94. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 6:27 am
    thubanstar

    I`d rather trust the people actually studying sea-level rises than some PhD in "environmental sciences". I have a degree in an environmental science, specifically geology, and was in fact offered a PhD to study the coast of the Gulf of Mexico (which had "climate change" tacked onto the title of the project for no reason whatever except to attract funding).

    I know a little about sea levels, enough to know they have been rising and falling ever since we have seas and that the overall rate of sea-level rise has not changed for 150 years, at about 3mm per year. So unless "pretty much EVERYTHING that is near the coast on both sides of the state" is below 1 foot your boyfriend is either lying or failing in his research.
  95. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 6:38 am
    Vexys

    "...we reduce our emissions, be it CO2 or methane and generally clean up our act, whats the harm?"

    Mass death. Grinding poverty. Idiot "environmentalists" and anti-capitalists (but I repeat myself) think it romantic to live without the modern facilities and cheap energy, but it isn`t. Life is nasty, brutish and short. Life is backbreaking physical labour, poor nutrition, deathly cold and suffocating heat. Life expectancies are below 50 years.

    Of course not for Al Gore. He still hires private jets - big ones too. I know people who have hired them to him. Not even the people programming computers to show (against all empirical evidence) positive feedback in temperature need cancel a single seminar in a tropical island paradise to avoid flying there.

    No, it is black people in Africa and brown or yellow people in Asia and South America who will suffer most. Poor westerners suffer a little more. The rich, including almost all &q
  96. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 6:49 am
    I feel bad for the polar bears. They should migrate to Scotland. Except there`s nothing worth eating in Scotland.
  97. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 6:50 am
    Squrlz: The graph I posted comes from Phd. Robert Spencer of NASA. He was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Phd. Spencer continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. His research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
    So quit your lying, it makes you seem stupid.

    mesovortex: There is no `cherry picking` of data in the graph I provided. Squrlz`s graph is the infamous `hockey stick` graph that stops a decade ago. That graph was used to scare people, and still is apparently, but it`s not aged well. The 2000 GISS models predicted we would be much much warmer now and we simply aren`t.
  98. Profile photo of Vexys
    Vexys Male 18-29
    74 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 7:20 am
    randomxnp

    I think you may well of put words in my mouth, at what point did I say we needed to live naturally with no technology or industry?

    And I think you largely missed the point of my arguement, so ill point it out for you. Why bother arguing about stuff like this when ultimately all the believers in anthropogenic climate warming are asking for us to do is clean up? It not only promotes better living environments for us and the other species we share this planet with but can help push technology and understanding forward.
  99. Profile photo of Vexys
    Vexys Male 18-29
    74 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 7:29 am
    Sorry randomxnp, I missed another point.

    From what I can tell (ill admit I`m limited to what I can find on the internet and the professionals my biologist grandmother can refer me to) whilst warming is indeed a natural trend, it seems to be happening in a matter of decades rather than centuries. I`m led to believe that this has not happened in this time scale before hence my usage of the word unprecedented.

    By all means show me information from a verifiable and peer reviewed source and I`ll concede that point

    And should you do so I`d like to point out it still doesn`t change my point in my original post ;-)
  100. Profile photo of pumba62
    pumba62 Male 40-49
    1018 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 7:50 am
    wow re-post on same day !!!
  101. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:53 am
    `Maybe the fact that the heater of the earth is getting hotter (the sun dummasses)?`

    In the last 35 years, the sun has shown a cooling trend.

    Link
  102. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 9:55 am
    "I feel bad for the polar bears."

    Why? Their populations are growing at an amazing rate!
  103. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 10:47 am
    I feel bad for the polar bears. They should migrate to Scotland. Except there`s nothing worth eating in Scotland.
    I`ll have you know haggis is delicious.
  104. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 11:27 am
    CrakrJak:
    "There is no `cherry picking` of data in the graph I provided."

    I just showed you how it was cherry picked.
  105. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 11:28 am
    " Squrlz`s graph is the infamous `hockey stick` graph that stops a decade ago. "

    No it isn`t. The `hockey stick` graph is a graph of global temps including proxy data that goes back over 1000 years that was put out by Mann, not GISS.

    You can`t even get your fundamental facts right.
  106. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 11:57 am
    mesovortex: Spencer`s graph actually has more data points and a 13 month average. Squrlz graph is indeed a section of Mann`s `hockey stick` has fewer data points and a 5 year average.

    The GISS predictions were separate from either graph. I`m afraid you are either aren`t reading what I typed very well, or just in denial.

    GISS are computer models to predict the future, unfortunately people don`t realize this fact and sometimes use them, instead of actual temperature data, to claim that global warming is real.
  107. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    Crakrjak, I just went and looked up your guy on Wikipedia. I promise, it was out of good intentions, I thought, "Oh, a legitimate, credible, real scientist finally, I`d like to see some of his work!"

    Only to find out he`s also a Creationist and ID supporter. I was genuinely disappointed. Ah well, maybe next time.
  108. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 4:17 pm
    Squrlz4Sale: climate wars is also a video on youtube (3 parts)

    But what can we do about all this?
  109. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 5:13 pm
    @TheGuySmiley: Forgive me for asking this, but is that a serious, non-snarky question? I ask only because there are so many uninformed, pontificating people on here charged up with propaganda that it`s rare to see someone ask a serious question with the intent of learning.

    If you are seriously looking for my thoughts, that would be refreshing. Most of the time the subject of AGW comes up, I`m forced to expend virtually all my time putting out fires of misinformation. So let me know if the question`s for real. I don`t want to write a short essay only to find the question was being asked facetiously. Thanks!
  110. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 7:36 pm
    @CrakrJak: You`re so ill-informed about Roy Spencer, the self-described "Official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show" (that`s not a joke, folks: link is here), that it makes me cringe.

    Yes, Spencer *was* associated with NASA. I can assure you, that is a connection that NASA would do *anything* to go back in time to undo. Why? Because Spencer committed one of, if not THE, biggest gaffes in climatology history. For over two years, he insisted that NASA`s own satellite data was showing that the Earth was not warming, when all the land-based observations indicated it was. Millions of research dollars, and countless research hours, were spent trying to unravel this mystery.

    Finally, a colleague audited Dr. Spencer`s research and it was found he was misreading the satellite data. Whoops!

    (Cont`d)
  111. Profile photo of Runemang
    Runemang Male 30-39
    2676 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 7:54 pm
    I`m no expert ... but that doesn`t even look remotely accurate. Are the colors suppose to indicate rate of change and not hot/cold as the colors imply or something? If not, why are areas of the arctic circle the same temp as the equator even "before global warming"?
  112. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 7:55 pm
    (Cont`d)

    As incredible as it may seem, the esteemed Dr. Spencer of NASA neglected to calibrate the data for the orbital decay of the satellites: meaning, the satellites` orbits had fallen appreciably (as predicted); the readings which were taken at a lower altitude had to be converted; and Dr. Spencer, for years (!), forgot to do the conversion.

    This is not a point of debate. It is a matter of public record; it is a colossal blunder that Dr. Spencer himself has admitted to.(Link)

    Once the satellite data was corrected, what did it show? In agreement with the land-based measurements, the Earth *was* warming. D`oh!

    So, yeah, Dr. Roy Spencer: FORMERLY associated with NASA, now the "Official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show." (And, lest we forget, the favorite climatologist of CrakrJak.)
  113. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:04 pm
    Squrlz got to it before me. Nice explanation of the satellite issue.
  114. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:06 pm
    Not that it will make a difference to Crakrjak...
  115. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm
    @FoolsPrussia: High five!... down low!... too slow! =^.^=
  116. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:13 pm
    @FoolsPrussia:

    Not that it will make a difference to Crakrjak...
    You`re right, I`m sure. For over a year now, CrakrJak and I have participated in this bizarre ritual where he comes onstage and lets fly with all sorts of nonsense about global warming and then I dutifully appear, Pooper Scooper at the ready, to clean up after him.

    It`s a thankless task, but somebody`s got to do it.
  117. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:20 pm
    Hahahaha! @FancyLad deleted his double-reposting of this!

    The Earth has been warmer than now.
    The Earth has been colder than now.

    IT MUST BE HUMAN ACTION THAT CAUSED IT!

    There`s simply no other explaination!

    Colder during the Ice Age? = humans!
    Hotter during the Dinosaur age? = humans!

    Oh wait, I thought AGW didn`t believe in Creationism, or ID, like @davymid said...

    Hummmm... NOPE! Still = humans did it!
  118. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm
    Squrlz: Rush called him that, Not Spencer himself. Your "self-described" claim is a lie, surprise surprise. You are also basing your criticism of him solely on what some older satellites recorded. Even so, the corrected data does not agree with the higher land-based measurements. The Aqua satellite does not have the discrepancies of the older satellites. Dr. Spencer still works for NASA and his research is still funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE and the DOT.

    Davy: Climatologist Patrick Michaels defended Spencer, arguing that his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his climate change research.

    The reason the satellite measurements are more important is because there are a lot fewer thermometers out on the ocean (on buoys) and the earth is nearly 2/3rds water. You can`t base `global` temperature solely on land measurements because you`re missing 2/3rds of the earth.
  119. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:50 pm
    Squrlz: I`ve participated in a few of those as well, though you`re more knowledgeable than I am about the finer scientific details.
  120. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:54 pm
    Hahahaha! @FancyLad deleted his double-reposting of this!
    Actually that was me. Someone`s gotta watch his back and clean up after him. He`s even more functionally retarded than I am, and that`s saying something.
  121. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 8:57 pm
    Squrlz: It`s one thing to misread data, It`s quite another to outright use "Tricks" and "Hide" the data like Mann and his ilk have done. The GISS model predictions were off far far more, by a factor of 100% to over 300% higher than what the actual temperature is today.

    The 2000 GISS models predicted that the `worst case`, if we did nothing to lessen CO2 levels, We would be over +1.0 deg. C above normal average in the year 2012. Well it`s 2012 now, and we are holding at a running average of around +0.2 deg. C above average, which is nothing to be worried over.

    The sky isn`t falling chicken little, sorry to break that news to you.
  122. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 13, 2012 at 9:02 pm
    @CrakrJak: CrakrJak, every other word out of your mouth is inaccurate. I haven`t decided if you`re a pathological liar or simply have a screw loose. Fortunately, 98% of the readers of the site have come to the same conclusion, so I really don`t feel I need to press the point.

    Tell us again how the hockey stick chart`s data "came from just 3 trees, that`s all, just 3 trees." Or how "most of the carbon in a barrel of crude oil is refined out of it." Or how petroleum coke (as opposed to *coal* coke) is used in the manufacture of steel. Or how volcanoes dwarf man`s CO2 emissions (when exactly the opposite is the case). Or any of those other charming nuggets you like to repeat. =^.^=
  123. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13596 posts
    September 14, 2012 at 12:28 am
    kinky_afr0
    Its always freezing in Scotland aint it?
  124. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    September 14, 2012 at 3:57 am
    Here`s why republicans refuse to believe the science. And they consider liberals the dummies...
  125. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    September 14, 2012 at 4:27 am
    What Quackerjack is trying to say is he`s going to pretend there`s no problem so that better people can make all the sacrifices instead of him.
  126. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31764 posts
    September 14, 2012 at 9:15 am
    Actually that was me. Someone`s gotta watch his back and clean up after him.
    Oh, no worries @davymid! I thought it was unusual, he usually leaves them up. Once you`ve gone through the effort of posting, might as well leave it there, eh?

    Plus I think he enjoys a little abuse now and then...
  127. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    September 14, 2012 at 9:21 pm
    @Madest: Thanks for that link. I hadn`t seen the article before and it was well worth reading.
  128. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 15, 2012 at 9:23 pm
    What Quackerjack is trying to say is he`s going to pretend there`s no problem so that better people can make all the sacrifices instead of him.
    Ouch. Zing.
  129. Profile photo of UDUMASS
    UDUMASS Male 30-39
    60 posts
    September 18, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    So... they`re saying that the planet has warmed up about 3 degrees since 1880? I wonder if they ever stopped to think that maybe the devices used to measure the temperature back in 1880 might have been a bit less accurate than today`s... hmmm.....
    Bazinga science!
  130. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 18, 2012 at 9:35 pm
    So... they`re saying that the planet has warmed up about 3 degrees since 1880? I wonder if they ever stopped to think that maybe the devices used to measure the temperature back in 1880 might have been a bit less accurate than today`s... hmmm.....
    Bazinga science!
    Yeah. I`m pretty sure they thought of that.

Leave a Reply