By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
CrazyHorse on 21 February 2010
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
megaman79 said:
@Kasz216 - Believe it or not, but i have actually been trying to follow up on the points some of you have made about everything relying on just one guy. In fact i am highly sceptical that this would be the case, as should you be.

@Sqrl, He has very valid reasons for appearing arrogant about this, considering the high percentage of support from the international community.
Even though the quote makes him appear ridiculously close minded i agree with some who have insisted that it is way past the point of debate IF we are to actually try and prevent things escalating out of hand.

It is fairly unbelievable because what's been stated are fairly simple and damning matters of fact.

If you followed them up... your opinion really should of changed.


The "not statistically signficant in the last 15 years" itself is ridiculiously damning if you know anything about current global warming theory.  It pretty much destroys all the climate models that currently exist.

One major reason is that the tempeture measuring records like the tempeture stations methods were VERY problematic and unscientifically done.  They didn't account for ubran sprawn and urban warming effect, stations were dropped and re-added etc... the oceans were generally ignored.

Satellite data is the only good form of tempeture measurement.  Which has only been used for like... well 10-15 years.

 

All the science is based on very poor methods of unrepresentive tempeture measurement.  In reality we know... pretty much NOTHING.  Except that there has been no global warming trend for the last 10-15 years.  Yet people are 100% sure global warming is happening.


If something isn't statistically significant yet says they're 100% it's happening... they are no real scientist.

I think most of the concern about global warming comes from data which goes back a lot longer than those 15 years. Climate records from the past ~500,000 years show that there is a clear correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases. Most current climate research is focussed on how the Earth will respond IF the temperature does increase (i.e sea level rise, ocean circulation and heat distribution ect). It's clear from the graph (below) that temperature and CO2 are related and according to the data, CO2 increases precede temperature increase. However, the error in the measurements is more than large enough for the opposite to be true. So for me the biggest question we need to solve right now is which of the two cases is true.

I'm inclined to lead towards temerature being the driving force behind CO2 increases as there is a clear mechanism we know off that allows for this (orbital variations which correspond to the cycles seen in the graph raise the Earth's temp which in turns causes the oceans to release more CO2 into the atmosphere). As far as I know there is no mechanism which could account for CO2 increasing before temperature. If that is the case the only issue left to be resolved is how large an impact the CO2 had as a feedback role in further rasing the temperature. If the CO2 did act as a feedback mechanic then that presents problems for us as our CO2 levels are currently far higher than they have ever been over the past 500,000 years.