Who believes the hype of global warming?

[Davan]

Did you know that the total estimated temperature increase in the US over the last 120 years is 0.33 degrees Celcius?

Did you know that most ecological scientists believe that the downward estimates generated from the Global heat island effect are far too small, and that the actual change in temperature is even lower than what we believe?

Did you know that all temperature data is heavily handled, modified, and "normalized" before it is released, tainting it?

Did you know that claims of melting Glaciers is based on measurements of less than 1% of the worlds glaciers?

Did you know that scientists have found that the ice around Antartica is increasing?

Did you know that there are more trees in the US today than there were 50 years ago?

Did you know that the largest increase in CO2 was accompanied by a *decrease* in measured global temperatures (before 1950)



Wheres the emergency?

 

[desy]

Did you know that in order to post 'fact' you should link it?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Davan
Topic Title: Who believes the hype of global warming?

Wheres the emergency?

Obviously you don't believe it and you don't live on the coast so you don't see the Ocean levels rising.

Enjoy

 

[OrByte]

nice "facts"

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Davan

Did you know that there are more trees in the US today than there were 50 years ago?

I think that's primarily because of advances in farming and society's structure (people don't need their own farms, etc.).

 

[daniel49]

I heard the other day the Martian ice caps were melting.
Obviously those martians need to upgrade thier suv's.

 

[Davan]

"Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently. The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975."

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth6.cfm

Half a foot in 100 years! Run for the hills!

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Davan
Did you know that the total estimated temperature increase in the US over the last 120 years is 0.33 degrees Celcius?

You only need a 7 degree (F) drop to start an ice age, so I think moving 1 degree (F) in the opposite direction in a century is quite significant.

 

[Lemon law]

No,

I do believe the hype of global warming. Nor do I believe your statistics are unbaised either.

But I also know we only now know a tiny fraction of all the factors involved. With some effects masking
others.

The arguement that what we don't know can't hurt us is a really stupid one.
Which seems to be the thesis of the OP.

 

[blackllotus]

Reality

A good, non-biased view of global warming that summarizes the facts and the uncertainties.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe in the fact of global warming. The hype, though, I can't get into.

 

[Strk]

Obviously Al Gore invented it.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: desy
Did you know that in order to post 'fact' you should link it?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

Quality Control, Homogeneity Testing, and Adjustment Procedures
The data for each station in the USHCN are subjected to the following quality control and homogeneity testing and adjustment procedures.

A quality control procedure is performed that uses trimmed means and standard deviations in comparison with surrounding stations to identify suspects (> 3.5 standard deviations away from the mean) and outliers (> 5.0 standard deviations). Until recently these suspects and outliers were hand-verified with the original records. However, with the development at the NCDC of more sophisticated QC procedures this has been found to be unnecessary.

Next, the temperature data are adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986) which occurs when observing times are changed from midnight to some time earlier in the day. The TOB is the first of several adjustments. ..snip..

Temperature data at stations that have the Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) are adjusted for the bias introduced when the liquid-in-glass thermometers were replaced with the MMTS (Quayle, et al. 1991). ...snip..

The homogeneity adjustment scheme described in Karl and Williams (1987) is performed using the station history metadata file to account for time series discontinuities due to random station moves and other station changes. ..snip..

Estimates for missing data are provided using a procedure similar to that used in the homogeneity adjustment scheme in step three. This fourth adjustment uses the debiased data from the third adjustment (SHAP) and fills in missing original data when needed (i.e. calculates estimated data) based on a ?network? of the best correlated nearby stations. ..snip..


The final adjustment is for an urban warming bias which uses the regression approach outlined in Karl, et al. (1988). The result of this adjustment is the ?final? version of the data. Details on the urban warming adjustment are available in ?Urbanization: Its Detection and Effect in the United States Climate Record? by Karl. T.R., et al., 1988, Journal of Climate 1:1099-1123. ...snip...

Currently all data adjustments in the USHCN are based on the use of metadata. However station histories are often incomplete or changes that can cause a time series discontinuity, such as replacing a broken thermometer with one that is calibrated differently, are not routinely entered into station history files. ..snip..

Theres five to seven filters/normalizations/changes that all recorded temperature data will see before it is considered final. Do you have no issues with this? Are you not at all curious what the ---actual--- recorded temperatures are?? (If they even exist) Sounds like a good basis for global policy change to me.

 

[Todd33]

I love Fwd:Fwd:Fwd: e-mail generated for sheeple like the OP.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Davan
"Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently. The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975."

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth6.cfm

Half a foot in 100 years! Run for the hills!

National Center for Public Policy Research....Next time try to pick site that is not part of a network of sites that are backed by a organization with a political and corporate agenda.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I love Fwd:Fwd:Fwd: e-mail generated for sheeple like the OP.

Please locate the email that I fwd:fwd:fwd'ed that from. I typed everything that I posted originally and copy pasted none.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re...n/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

To see the handled temperature change in the US of 0.4 degrees F from 1900 - 1999. Thats 0.222 degrees Celcius temperature change in 100 years.

*edit spelling mistake

*edit #2

Disregard graph above, I misread the data. Here is the actual data set.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

Roughly 0.5C change in temperature over a 125 year period.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Davan
"Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently. The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975."

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth6.cfm

Half a foot in 100 years! Run for the hills!

National Center for Public Policy Research....Next time try to pick site that is not part of a network of sites that are backed by a organization with a political and corporate agenda.

Who do you work for? They pay you right? Do they decide how you think? Do they tell you what to believe, what religion you are, and what you can do in your spare time?

Dont bash scientists because they have to have money to live. Bash the **DATA** (if you even have the background to do so.)

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Davan

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Davan
"Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently. The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975."

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth6.cfm

Half a foot in 100 years! Run for the hills!

National Center for Public Policy Research....Next time try to pick site that is not part of a network of sites that are backed by a organization with a political and corporate agenda.

Who do you work for? They pay you right? Do they decide how you think? Do they tell you what to believe, what religion you are, and what you can do in your spare time?

Dont bash scientists because they have to have money to live. Bash the **DATA** (if you even have the background to do so.)

If the facts you gathered were from a neutral site devoted to research and not a site with a clear political agenda you'd have a point. I supposed you believed tobacco industry paid scientists and doctors when they said that smoking did not lead to cancer ?

 

[Davan]

Argue against the data, not the source. Until you have the capability to do so youre simply leading people away from the point of the thread.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Davan
Theres five to seven filters/normalizations/changes that all recorded temperature data will see before it is considered final. Do you have no issues with this? Are you not at all curious what the ---actual--- recorded temperatures are?? (If they even exist) Sounds like a good basis for global policy change to me.

If you know math then there is no issue with those adjustments. Removing outliers is necessary so the data isn't skewed by extreme and abnormal results from certain areas. Adjusting for "time-of-observation" and adjusting for biases with old measurement systems is also perfectly valid since these biases/differences are easily measurable and consistent.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Davan
Argue against the data, not the source. Until you have the capability to do so youre simply leading people away from the point of the thread.

So if I post scientific data from a Earth First or Green Peace related websites that point to the opposite opinion of your link would you call it valid data ?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Davan
Argue against the data, not the source. Until you have the capability to do so youre simply leading people away from the point of the thread.

Often but not necessarily true. I do not ask my insurance agent how good the insurance he is selling is. People are entitled to question the objectivity of your source as well as any data. We can discount complaints about data, perhaps, from an unpopular source, but nobody should buy into data from a biased one.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Davan
Argue against the data, not the source. Until you have the capability to do so youre simply leading people away from the point of the thread.

If the source is invalid then the data is by default not reliable. Since the data presented is at odds with data presented on many scientific websites and the website is sponsered by an organization with obvious political motives, then it is illogical to blindly accept the data as factual.

 

[Davan]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Davan
Argue against the data, not the source. Until you have the capability to do so youre simply leading people away from the point of the thread.

So if I post scientific data from a Earth First or Green Peace related websites that point to the opposite opinion of your link would you call it valid data ?

Thats fine - If you can provide a link that has measured the rise in the oceans at a greater rate than that of the random link I posted I would be willing to review that data.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Davan
Argue against the data, not the source. Until you have the capability to do so youre simply leading people away from the point of the thread.

If the source is invalid then the data is by default not reliable. Since the data presented is at odds with data presented on many scientific websites and the website is sponsered by an organization with obvious political motives, then it is illogical to blindly accept the data as factual.

Bull. The source could be the devil and he can still be right.