still denying global warming?

Large chunks of ice break away often from glaciers. I guess it was really warming up then back in 1962? The breaking of ice here is a non-story in the attempt to make it into a Global Warming story. Nice try.
 
Jiro said:
hypothesis and theory are not exactly the same thing. A lab course will tell you why. or advanced math course.

ironically enough... you used the dictionary....
Click to expand...

No irony at all that was the point. :)

And yes, I am aware they are not exactly the same. In fact I bolded the differences. There is a point in that too. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
Ahem

:lol:
Click to expand...

Boy, talk about being confused between a "hypothesis" and a "theory." Got a nice little chuckle out of that one. This has been touted all along as a global warming theory...not a global warming hypothesis. It'd be kind of funny to try and pass a law like the cap and trade bill based on a global warming hypothesis. It was silly to even try on the basis of a global warming theory.
 
TXgolfer said:
No irony at all that was the point. :)

And yes, I am aware they are not exactly the same. In fact I bolded the differences. There is a point in that too. :)
Click to expand...

sssshhhhhh......... it's less painful that way

backpedal.gif
 
Beowulf said:
Graphs have lost all credibility since they cannot cover all the variabilities in a setting. CO2 is the lightweight of greenhouse gases, so I don't understand the insistence on it garnering sole focus. What about methane? What about weather warfare? Solar flares? There are so many variables but I have one thing that graphs do not--instinct. I KNOW beyond a shadow of any doubt that mankind is contributing in SOME way to global weather change, and my guts very rarely steer me wrong.
Click to expand...

There is always the possibility of man's contribution in some way but it is certainly not in a major way with global warming alarmists saying that CO2 is a major contributor to global warming outdoing even gases like H20 (which makes up 100 times more the atmospheric gases than C02) or solar input. There are so many variables with atmospheric gases, solar input, cosmic rays influence on the upper atmosphere, the amount of clouds produced or lost, aerosol, ocean's cooling and warming, CO2 absorption and release rate from the ocean, albedo from ice and snow, and more. Not to mention the very problematic data collection on temperature from thousands of questionable surface temperature stations all across the globe that have been shown to skew temperature data trend.
 
kokonut said:
There is always the possibility of man's contribution in some way but it is certainly not in a major way with global warming alarmists saying that CO2 is a major contributor to global warming outdoing even gases like H20 (which makes up 100 times more the atmospheric gases than C02) or solar input. There are so many variables with atmospheric gases, solar input, cosmic rays influence on the upper atmosphere, the amount of clouds produced or lost, aerosol, and more. Not to mention the very problematic data collection on temperature from thousands of questionable surface temperature stations all across the globe that have been shown to skew temperature data trend.
Click to expand...

and there is always the possibility of man's contribution to global warming in MAJOR way.....
 
Jiro said:
sssshhhhhh......... it's less painful that way

backpedal.gif
Click to expand...

Sorry you missed the point. It was pretty obvious. In trying to belittle another member she actually downgraded global warming....... Duh


That is why I bolded the differences. Perhaps you should retake that lab course. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
Sorry you missed the point. It was pretty obvious. In trying to belittle another member she actually downgraded global warming....... Duh


That is why I bolded the differences. Perhaps you should retake that lab course. :)
Click to expand...

because we do not have a solid understanding of global warming... a hypothesis is formed, not a theory.
 
Jiro said:
because we do not have a solid understanding of global warming... a hypothesis is formed, not a theory.
Click to expand...

Yup, I don't have good understanding about how global warming caused because of heat debate and different views by political wings like left and right.
 
Foxrac said:
Yup, I don't have good understanding about how global warming caused because of heat debate and different views by political wings like left and right.
Click to expand...

we do not have a solid understanding of it either and it's not because of political hyperbole but it is my stance that man is not a major cause of global warming.
 
Foxrac said:
I don't know why do they call as fast fact when we don't have solid understanding about global warming.
Click to expand...

it's from 3 years ago. I'm sure they updated their fast facts by now.
 
Jiro said:
it's from 3 years ago. I'm sure they updated their fast facts by now.
Click to expand...

Can't find their updated on fast facts and I guess that I'm not side with any kind of global warming right now until we find more information about global warming in future.
 
Foxrac said:
It means this website - National Geographic support your stance on global warming?
Global Warming Fast Facts
Click to expand...

There are seveal problems here and assumptions on NG's part.

Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.
Click to expand...

The last two decades also saw growth in cities and towns where temperature gage stations are affected by these changes. These things have been documented and recorded for the many problems regarding following proper protocols on temperature gage placement and type of materials used in order to get a more standardized and acceptable readings. This has been problematic for decades! I suggest you go to
Surface Stations and see the many hundreds of temperature monitoring gages that have recorded temps in error as much as 1 to 2 degrees C higher because of, for example, placing it near black asphalt surfaces or near warm air blowing out of an air conditioning unit.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.
Click to expand...

Again, I question the temperature data. Where and how they were taken. See Home to get my point here.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.
Click to expand...

Funny how the last three years (2007 to 2010) Arctic sea ice extent has gotten to the point that it is the same as it was in 2003. Secondly, polar bears are not suffering because of the lack of ice. There are more polar bears now, not fewer. Canada issues 700 bear-hunting permits each year where some 500 were killed annually. If polar bears were on the decline because of the "lack of ice" then Canada wouldn't be issuing bear hunting permits.
http://www.polarbearcanada.ca/documents/current_facts_on_polar_bears.pdf

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.
Click to expand...

So, man made global warming had its effect since 1910 to cause the reduction of glaciers in Montana's Glacier National Park since then?


Etc...etc...etc...
 
there's no point in pointing out errors in NG. It's not a scientific organization and the article is from 3 years ago.
 
Back
Top