Congessional Hearing on Global Warming Cancelled Due to Snowstorm

[Sand]

Cycles in climate takes thousands and thousands of years to go through. I don't think there is any hard data about what precipitated the last ice age. Just remnants of what is dug up in ice drillings in the Antartic.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

Cycles in climate takes thousands and thousands of years to go through. I don't think there is any hard data about what precipitated the last ice age. Just remnants of what is dug up in ice drillings in the Antartic.

exactly, though they think the earth's "wobble" on its axis is what causes the ice ages since the two periods are closely linked.

 

my point is that if you use the last 30 years of data, it looks like we're headed for doom. however, in the 1970s the opposite was true as temperatures were in steep decline from about the late 1930s through the late 1970s. note that CO2 was increasing during that time, probably faster than now (haven't seen the latest plots). many of the older climate scientists that are now claiming "catastrophic warming," were then claiming "new ice age approaching." it's all a big joke.

 

taks

[Sand]

Agreed. We need to take a look at the last 10,000 years of climate effects, weather, and aberrations as well as current phenomena that can effect weather on a global scale. Such as the sun is also on a cycle, which has been predicted that it is currently heading into a sunspot cycle which means it will be radiating less solar energy. Less solar energy means less heat on the Earth, thusly things should cool down or balance against this warming trend.

[taks]

i think you meant LOW sunspot cycle. it's currently very high. the maunder minimum was a devastating period in which there were almost none.

 

actually, if you look at graphs of the solar activity, and compare them to what we think temps were like over the last several hundred years, you'll notice a surprising correlation. sunspots by themselves are not the actual cause of the increase in energy, but they are indicators of increased activity within the sun.

 

taks

[Sand]

Yeah, my bad.

[Walsingham]

I think the correlation with industrialisation is quite clear. Correlation never implies causation, but there is the fact that there is a logical reason why industrialisation should cause an increase, as Mkreku says. Global warming seeems to be an acceptable hypothesis until someone proves otherwise.

[mkreku]

No, the Antarctic is NOT significantly cooler. There are parts that are warmer and there are parts that are cooler. The net for the entire gigantic area we're talking about is slightly warmer.

even YOUR plot shows that it is cooler... sheesh, can't even read your own data.

I had a feeling you'd fail to read that graph, as it's not entirely logical. Read it again though: it shows the net mean temperature based on the starting year you choose relative to now. If you choose to start in 1957 (which are the oldest readings) the relative temperature change is +0.4 C. If you choose to start in 1970 (and disregard all the other readings before that date) you'd get another value, and so on.

 

Regardless, you claimed that temperatures for the entire Antarctic region were "significantly" lower. This graph just disproves your BS, no matter how you read it. When will you stop pulling crap out of your ass and actually present something tangible and reliable?

 

the question is whether the "global warming" hypothesis has strong connection to man.

We don't know. Which is why we must rely on unreliable statistics to see some sort of pattern. Like this one:

 

 

We do know for a fact that we're pumping out enormous amounts of green house gas into the atmosphere. This fact together with the temperature readings are what's making the "alarmists" send out warnings.

 

al's making the claim that this is over 1000s of years, not 10. do you really think 10 years is a representative sample?

 

No, I don't. But it's the best we have. Unless you can dig up 1000 year old global temperature records somehow? Or are you suggesting that because we don't have enough data to draw a conclusion with at least 99% probability of being right, we should just disregard the fact that there are more green house gas in the atmosphere and the short time we have measured shows an increase in temperatures around the globe?

 

study statistics, it is helpful.

 

Thanks for the advice, but I have a lot of university credits in statistics already. Which helps me explain this whole idea behind statistics: they're used to show a pattern. There's no absolute truth in statistics. Yes, we would have a much higher probability of being right if we had 1000 years of statistics to lean on. We'd see a pattern that would (probably) be right about 99% of the times. We only have 60 odd years or so of reliable temperature recordings from around the globe. So what does this mean? Are they automatically drawing the wrong conclusions because of the puny sample rate? No. The only thing that differs between having 1000 years of data and 60 years of data is the probability that the pattern they're discerning is correct. Apparently a lot of scientists with far more knowledge on the subject than any of us on this board reckon that's enough of a sample to draw a conclusion from.

[Walsingham]

One can compensate for a small sample size if the size of the change is very large. So the statement "we are experiencing a significantly different global climate now to ten years ago" becomes possible.

[Guard Dog]

Not to be a kill joy or anything, but this thread was really just about a funny headline. There is another thread on global warming already that is more condusive to discussion. I guess it makes sense to shut this one down and concentrate everyone on the other one.

[Walsingham]

Not to be a kill joy or anything, but this thread was really just about a funny headline. There is another thread on global warming already that is more condusive to discussion. I guess it makes sense to shut this one down and concentrate everyone on the other one.

 

*bows politely*