In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
The majority of people who deny the reality of global warming believe that an imaginary person in the sky controls their lives.
That's some hella LULZ right there.
You can afford to eat locally, stop using plastic, and stop taking western medicine.
The second issue brought up was the Easterbrook "analysis." First off, Easterbrook starts off with a severe distortion of the IPCC model. The IPCC report does not state that we can expect to see a temperature increase of 1 degree C from 2000-2010. This is just a flat-out lie. The IPCC released a Special Report of Emission Scenarios where they develop models based on what emissions of CO2 may look like. In other words, they have a model for reduced emissions, a model for moderate emissions, a model for increased emissions, and so on (more scientific than I have described). I have pasted a link below that will take you to the report if you would like to see their different scenarios (not the attached link, but just the text link). What Easterbrook did was take the IPCC's statement that ABSENT ALL OTHER FACTORS, temperature from 2000 to 2010 would rise by 1%. This is not the IPCC's projection because the scenarios developed in the report include other factors, such as aerosols in the atmosphere, solar activity (including sun spots), el nina (which produced a cooling trend), etc.
The IPCC doesn't produce one set of projections, they produce models that attempt to show what will happen based on human activity and emissions. When the IPCC released their third assessment in 2001, they had a range of possible temperature change. On a per decade basis, that range was from .15 degree C increase to .3 degree C increase. Most of the IPCC models predict somewhere around a 1 degree C increase by the year 2030. Easterbrook is just flat out wrong in his claim, and if any climatologists who actually publish peer-reviewed articles bothered to attend the "conference" they would have pointed out their mistake. I think they were all doing something more important with their time, like attending comicon.
Another interesting thing is actual temperature observations with Easterbrook's own models. Easterbrook's 2 models projected a 0.2 degree cooling and a 0.5 degree cooling over the 2000 decade. Because the observed 0.2 degree increase was closer to his 0.2 degree cooling than the made up 1 degree increase he attributed to the IPCC, he said he was right. In either event, he projected a cooling and there actually was warming.
Below is a peer-reviewed article reconciling the warming from 1998-2008 with anthropogenic and natural variability factors.
IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=0
0000000016 00000 n
0000001863 00000 n
0000001396 00000 n
0000001956 00000 n
0000001989 00000 n
0000002217 00000 n
0000002490 00000 n
0000002566 00000 n
0000003033 00000 n
0000003369 00000 n
0000003414 00000 n
0000003450 00000 n
0000003803 00000 n
0000003970 00000 n
0000004446 00000 n
0000004855 00000 n
0000006105 00000 n
0000006536 00000 n
0000006741 00000 n
0000006991 00000 n
0000007285 00000 n
0000007351 00000 n
0000008050 00000 n
0000008225 00000 n
0000009439 00000 n
0000009680 00000 n
0000009919 00000 n
0000010115 00000 n
0000010299 00000 n
0000011571 00000 n
0000011738 00000 n
0000012107 00000 n
0000012466 00000 n
0000012763 00000 n
0000013019 00000 n
0000014258 00000 n
0000015508 00000 n
0000016557 00000 n
0000017781 00000 n
0000029722 00000 n
0000030880 00000 n
0000039188 00000 n
0000042775 00000 n
0000043750 00000 n
0000044126 00000 n
0000044692 00000 n
0000047136 00000 n
0000051541 00000 n
0000053027 00000 n
0000053177 00000 n
0000054897 00000 n
0000055156 00000 n
0000055403 00000 n
0000055605 00000 n
0000055851 00000 n
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
They read, make assumptions, and without proof, simply on faith, they believe in something that others may of may not. You know, kind of like people that believe in man made global warming.
There's overwhelming science and there's believing in super heros.
But you go ahead and listen to Rush.
Except when people believe that man made global warming is a real thing they have evidence which indicates that it is actually happening. And this evidence doesn't consist of a book that's a couple thousand years old.
My bad. Was not aware man made global warming had been proven. If you say it has, that's good enough for me
Now that we have identified the problem, and all scientist agree, even though we can't control the weather, you guys are confident we can control the entire climate?
Where's the evidence?
And remember correlation =/= causation.
And look. Antarctic ice is at the highest level in the history of recording it.
No, the book on climate change said we were entering an ice age 40 years ago.
I still do not believe in the religion of anthropological global warming.
Is CO2 higher now than it would be without man? Yes
Is the temperature rising? Not really since 1999, but let us just say Yes for argument's sake
Do these two things together "prove" anthropological global warming? #ELL NO
I might as well say are there more incadescent lights now than 100 years ago? Yes
Is the temp rising? Yes
And then state that b/c incandescent lights give off heat and there are more of them and it is getting warmer, then the lights are the cause.
Most of the global warming models (anthroproligical) do not include the sun and cosmic rays, the source of all energy on earth. Heat is a measure of energy. Anybody with a physics/engineering background understands an energy balance (draw a box around the earth and energy in must equal energy out plus the change and any energy converted to mass). Now, how in the hell can one determine if global warming is a function of us increasing CO2 (less than 1/20 of 1% of the earth's atmosphere) if they are not taking into account the amount of energy coming in? Answer: They can't they are using causality to justify their existence and continued funding (GW scientists).
This post was edited by menichols74 22 months ago
All scientist now agree
We now know
It's been proven that
Every man made global warming argument starts out with one of the above statements, none of which are true.
He must work for oil companies.
Possibly. It's hard to say since the name "Steven Goddard" is a pseudonym.
Whoever he is...
Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject.
In any event he issued a retraction for the nonsense he was spewing...
"... it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated."
This post was edited by devidee 22 months ago
A simple google search shows that Steven Goddard is not a reliable source. Do you happen to have any peer reviewed work that you could show me?
I can dig through a bunch of articles (peer reviewed of course) and link them on here but I won't have time until tomorrow probably. However, if you hop onto google scholar and do a quick search of global warming articles versus articles claiming it's a hoax you can see that the difference in the amount of evidence supporting the two is pretty staggering.
Global warming is real! I have evidence!
Maybe those that buy into global warming can shut down their computers. Just think of all the coal that is being burned to operated those nasty devices!
unless you're Carbon Neutral - STFU
if you don't vote, you can't bvtch
This post was edited by downlowdawg 22 months ago
In November 2011, hackers steal e-mails between scientist, with these quotes among other statements
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC
Lack of proof, scientist lying, just doesn't matter. It's so dire, some people refuse to consider any other alternative
what? no man I am here to talk about football. I just googled that article. I don't have time to search scientific journals and pretend to be a meteorologist and global warming expert like you guys. I like how you threw out the term "peer reviewed" though. That shows intellect. This college football forum is definitely a gathering place for intellectuals.
This post was edited by cockengr 22 months ago
Used it twice. That shows twice as much intellect.
I'm your peer and I reviewed it. You good cuz
What are your thoughts on Richard Muller's recent announcement?
(oh, and this was peer-reviewed)
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by devidee 22 months ago
I'm not pretending to be a global warming expert (unless asking you to find legitimate articles by scientists with evidence that global warming is a hoax makes me one). And peer reviewed is a pretty basic term if you're trying to argue for or against something science related.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports