Cyber said:

Ok let me get this straight, The weather man can not predict the weather, with any accuracy, 7 days from now! But they want us to belive that they can tell us how the weather will be in 50 to 100 years?

Am I the only one that has a problem with this?

---

silversoul7 said:

Cyber said:

Ok let me get this straight, The weather man can not predict the weather, with any accuracy, 7 days from now! But they want us to belive that they can tell us how the weather will be in 50 to 100 years?

Am I the only one that has a problem with this?

---

Weather and climate are two different matters.

---

question_for_joo said:

Fact vs. Fiction on climate change
Fiction: Region X has cooled by Y?F over the past two years! There is no global warming!

---

Quote:

Record Heatwave Bakes Britain

---

Quote:

Mediterranean hot flush detected after scorching summer

---

To quote the above article.

"Preliminary analysis of existing results does indicate a general upward trend, but we will be more certain with more time and more data."

They even admit that they need more data.

So what does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have to say?

The IPCC clearly identified two major global climatic events in the past millennium, as confirmed by thousands of papers written by quaternary geologists during the past century -- a "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP) from about 800 to 1300 A.D. that was as much as two degrees Celsius warmer than today, and a far colder "Little Ice Age" (LIA) from about 1300 to 1900 A.D.  As part of our emergence from the LIA, scientists agreed there had been a gradual warming throughout the 20th century, although the reasons for this were hotly contested with increasing greenhouse gases (GHG) and changes in the output of the sun being leading contenders.

In recent years, however, the case for solar variations being the 20th century's major climate driver has become much stronger! After all, if long before human-induced GHG emission became significant, temperatures were considerably higher than today, there would be little reason to think today's temperatures were anything unnatural. This was especially true since long-term solar records indicated that both the MWP and LIA were closely correlated with changes in solar activity, and the output of the sun has indeed been increasing during the past century's 0.6C warming. Supporters of the GHG-induced warming hypothesis desperately needed a "smoking gun"

The temperature data from before 1900 is not directly measured, as they are after 1900 when land-based thermometer readings are used. Instead, pre-1900 temperatures are calculated based on the measurement of "proxies," natural phenomena such as the growth of tree rings or coral that indicate what temperature was at certain times in the past. Consequently, grafting the two very different types of data sets together without significant overlap to come to dramatic conclusions is unwarranted and should be seriously contested!  Chris de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, sums up, "The Mann 'hockey stick' is nothing more than a mathematical construct vigorously promoted in the IPCC's 2001 report to affirm the notion that temperature changes of the 20th century were unprecedented."

Unfortunately in recent years the Global Warming THEORY has been taken as gospal and has attained the dogma of a religion!
As we should all be aware a THEORY can not be proven it can only be disproven. A THEORY only stands until the data no longer fits the THEORY. Then the THEORY is revised or scraped for a better THEORY

Quote:

Bear
1. The Great "Global Warming" Myth

The greenhouse effect is a myth, and there have been extensive and complete, careful measurements which show absolutely NO increase in the average global temperature. The ones usually used in promoting this concept are based on incomplete sampling. Global warming does not exist. In fact there are so many buffers in the atmosphere that it can't happen, even if the CO2 increased hundreds of times over.

First of all, the CO2 content in the atmosphere is only a very tiny amount, about 300 parts per million. This CO2 stays in the air in equilibrium with the CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Since CO2 has a very steep curve of solubility in water, the amount in the air is critically dependent upon the sea surface temperatures (cold rain falling is an excellent CO2 scrubber). World CO2 measurements have traditionally been based on the levels tested in the air at Mona Kea Observatory in Hawaii. The charts of the levels fluctuate seasonally, rising in the summer and falling in the winter. If the levels are compared to the actual sea surface temperature measurements taken at Hilo, which is at the base of Mona Kea, the seasonal variations are seen to track exactly with the temperature. Even the gradual increase over time is duplicated in the temperature reading, as the average temperature at Hilo has been rising in exact lock step with the rise in the Mona Kea CO2 levels. (The charts of these measurement are easily available, making this a trivial exercise if you wish to verify my statements).

Burning fossil fuels is probably one of the most important aids to the life cycle on this oxygen-rich, carbon-poor planet that man can do. Most of the primeval carbon is locked away in the oil and coal deposits formed over the ages by cell death of the phytoplankton (diatoms), which created the oxygen-rich environment by decarboxylating the CO2 in the primitive atmosphere. The limits placed on CO2 are unreasonable and impede the creation of wealth which benefits everyone, and are harmful to the plant life at the same time.

---

question_for_joo said:

So you're saying that your scientists are real scientists cause they say Global Warming's a myth. You didn't even quote your source. My scientists are obviously fake if they believe something so proposterous. Ok, you don't want to believe in this stuff. Don't believe it. Here's to a comfortable fantasy. You're gonna feel it soon enough holmes.

---

question_for_joo said:

oh shit Emissions of carbon dioxide, the main culprit linked to a warming climate, also pose potential risks to the oceans, new research suggests.

The oceans have absorbed vast amounts of carbon dioxide released in the industrial age and have measurably changed, chemically and ecologically, as a result.

---

question_for_joo said:

How is any of that contradictory? Humans are pumping huge amounts of C02 into the atmosphere. It is causing a greenhouse effect. The ocean's are absorbing part of it but they are in turn becoming acidic.

---

Quote:

There are far more scientists that agree that the climate is changing than don't.

---