what's the margin of error in the data dated 1880?
If it's above 1%, it's effectively meaningless, considering the entire graph falls between 2% temperature change.
useful-fucking-idiots... VOTE THEM THE HELL OUT!
The Warmers Strike Back
- Thread starter FeenixRizin
- Start date
what's the margin of error in the data dated 1880?
If it's above 1%, it's effectively meaningless, considering the entire graph falls between 2% temperature change.
useful-fucking-idiots... VOTE THEM THE HELL OUT!
by the way, this isn't a question of "climate change", it's fundamentally a question of whether man-made CO2 is the primary driver of the change in climate. Further, it's a question of whether or not OUR CARBON SHOULD BE TAXED in the interest of cooling and "healing the planet"... And above all else avoid the "climate apocalypse". (the idiots have replaced god's wrath with gore's)
Idiot Gore has even admitted that past climate events have preceded rises in CO2..
Again, I'd LMFAO, but this has gotten so stupid as to be sad. In fact, I pity you.
all tools know their place
The primary role of human emitted CO2 in currently changing climate has got nothing to do with Al Gore - who is a (retired) politician not a scientist, but had the good sense to heed what the science is saying.
The role of CO2 also has got nothing to do with whether there will, or will not be carbon taxes. The US National Academy of Sciences has just released a new report which states:
" A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systemsâ¦.
" Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/...ces-america’s-climate-choices-global-warming/
The US NAS is a very conservative body, that just does not issue such statements without overwhelming evidence. When it talks about "settled facts", it really does mean it. Realize that the reputation of the most eminent scientists (not only climatologists) in the US is tied to this statement. How many Nobel laureates want to see their reputation trashed?
Whether carbon taxes will solve the problem is another issue and is far less clear than the science of climate change itself. For example James Hansen (perhaps the most well know climatologist) strongly opposes "cap and trade" and likens it to the indulgences granted by the medieval Catholic Church where sinners got absolution in return for money. Hansen advocates a "fee and dividend" scheme where all revenue from a carbon tax would be returned to the population as "dividend" paid to every person/family on a regular basis.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that "cap and trade" schemes will not solve the problem, are open to all sorts of abuse and in any case are likely to set too low a price on carbon to cause the kind of changes to energy production that are needed. I want to see serious action to mitigate the impending disaster, not the enrichment of GS (which won't affect climate) or necessarily increased government revenue (which may or may not affect climate depending on what the money is spent on).
In the end it may all come down to energy economics. Hansen's support for nuclear power is probably right about this as well and many environmentalists may have got this seriously wrong. There is a very good case to be put that nuclear is the safest, cleanest and ultimately cheapest way of generating reliable electricity when the devastating environmental effects of coal burning is taken into account. How many people know that a coal fired power station emits far more radiation into the environment than does a nuclear through radon gas in the coal going up the stack and elements such as uranium from the coal in the fly ash?
I agree, simple logic dictates be sceptical of anyone who says " the "science is settled " when it clearly is not. Especially when they are screaming the sky is falling at the same time...
How do we know the entire solar system isn't warming as some say it is. Also, scientists have shown that there have been higher levels of co2 millions of years ago when there was no industry. Something to think about.
Even if GW is true and I'm not saying it is or it isnt, I believe that the reasons behind it are too complex for our understanding imo. No one can rule out that it isn't a natural phenomenon, especially those UN hacks err I mean scientists( and I use the word loosly) Having said that however, it's become obvious to anyone with half a brain that Global Warming or as the spinmasters like to call it these days" climate change" has been hijacked by political interests that have their own agenda...
Nick
Quote from NKNY:
I agree, simple logic dictates be sceptical of anyone who says " the "science is settled " when it clearly is not. Especially when they are screaming the sky is falling at the same time...
The US National Academy has just issued a report that says the science is "settled" and every other national academy, scientific society and professional association with an official position asserts the reality of AGW. Which does not say everything is known about climate. Rather it says that we have a big problem.
It is certainly is something to think about which is why paleo climatologists have been thinking about and studying the role of CO2 in climate change over the history of the earth. This research has been going on for many years and is one of the very important inputs into the study of contemporary climate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
There is no evidence that the whole solar system is warming. There are specific reasons for observed changes in average temperature on different planets. Furthermore there is no evidence that the sun is warming (other than on million year plus time frames which is far to slow to account for current climate change).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
You are entitled to your opinion about complexity, but it is not shared by the world's leading scientific bodies. To say we don't know everything about climate, is not the same as saying we know nothing.
Oh, and by the way, the IPCC reports are not compiled by "UN scientists". They are compiled by scientists from universities all round the world and organizations such as NASA, NOAA, Australia's CSIRO, the UK Met Office etc etc. And most of that work was voluntary and unpaid.
They're going all in this year. Al and company will keep their fingers crossed. Gotta' be right sooner or later.
By Christopher Doering Christopher Doering â 2 hrs 14 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) â The Atlantic storm season may be the most intense since 2005, when Hurricane Katrina killed thousands after crashing through Gulf of Mexico energy facilities, the U.S. government's top climate agency predicted on Thursday.
In its first forecast for the storm season that begins next Tuesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast 14 to 23 named storms, with 8 to 14 developing into hurricanes, nearly matching 2005's record of 15.
Three to seven of those could be major Category 3 or above hurricanes, with winds of more than 110 miles per hour (177 km per hour), the agency said, echoing earlier predictions from meteorologists for a particularly severe season that could disrupt U.S. oil, gas and refinery operations.
By Christopher Doering Christopher Doering â 2 hrs 14 mins ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) â The Atlantic storm season may be the most intense since 2005, when Hurricane Katrina killed thousands after crashing through Gulf of Mexico energy facilities, the U.S. government's top climate agency predicted on Thursday.
In its first forecast for the storm season that begins next Tuesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast 14 to 23 named storms, with 8 to 14 developing into hurricanes, nearly matching 2005's record of 15.
Three to seven of those could be major Category 3 or above hurricanes, with winds of more than 110 miles per hour (177 km per hour), the agency said, echoing earlier predictions from meteorologists for a particularly severe season that could disrupt U.S. oil, gas and refinery operations.
LMFAO
What's the likelihood of 20 foot sea rises by 2030? Tens of millions of evacuees due in large part to cow flatulence?
If I eat a bean burrito for dinner and spend the night farting under my covers, by god, it's going to be hot under there. My human activity will have effected that climate.
An interesting thing to ponder, which I've never heard anyone suggest is this....
man contributes, reportedly, about 5% of CO2. What effect on the biomass of the earth would occur if this was cut to 0. Plant life enjoys CO2, as it is their food source. Not to mention the suggested decline in temperatures. 5% less growth?
Liberalism is nothing else but unintended consequences.
man contributes, reportedly, about 5% of CO2. What effect on the biomass of the earth would occur if this was cut to 0. Plant life enjoys CO2, as it is their food source. Not to mention the suggested decline in temperatures. 5% less growth?
Liberalism is nothing else but unintended consequences.