It's no wonder watertard is a believer. He doesn't even understand the scientific process. What a dumbass
2008: The Year Man-Made Global Warming Was disproved
- Thread starter KingCondanomation
- Start date
It's no wonder watertard is a believer. He doesn't even understand the scientific process. What a dumbass
uscitizen
Villified User
A negative 1/3 ?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
They were wrong. This year is still hotter than most in the 20th century. It is simply a non-heating outlier.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
This year is a La Nina, danotard. Of course it would be cooler than last year. It is still way fucking hotter than average, and in a La Nina, that should tell anyone with common sense something is wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst
Villager walks through the snow in Nanjing, China (February 2008)
La Nina caused some of the coldest temperatures in memory in China
Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.
Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.
Rises 'stalled'
LA NINA KEY FACTS
La Nina 2008 Forecast (Source: UK Met Office Hadley Centre)
La Nina translates from the Spanish as "The Child Girl"
Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific
Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific mean the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased
Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally less damaging event than the stronger El Nino
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Watching trends
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
Advertisement
Animation of El Nino and La Nina effects
But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the last 100 years.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
Advertisement
China suffered from heavy snow in January
Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.
Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst
Villager walks through the snow in Nanjing, China (February 2008)
La Nina caused some of the coldest temperatures in memory in China
Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.
Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.
Rises 'stalled'
LA NINA KEY FACTS
La Nina 2008 Forecast (Source: UK Met Office Hadley Centre)
La Nina translates from the Spanish as "The Child Girl"
Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific
Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific mean the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased
Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally less damaging event than the stronger El Nino
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Watching trends
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
Advertisement
Animation of El Nino and La Nina effects
But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the last 100 years.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
Advertisement
China suffered from heavy snow in January
Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.
Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html
“You can’t prove a negative.”
People who are searching for excuses to believe silly things frequently make this statement. A theist makes a positive assertion, and then declines to provide a basis for it. You deny their assertion (rightly so, what with no basis and all), but your denial is deemed invalid because it is impossible to prove a denial.
There is so very much wrong with this situation, it will take a while to wade through it.
The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages. That’s the answer to this statement in theory.
However, in practice, there is usually a lot more happening with the person who makes such a proclamation. The person who makes this kind of statement has a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought.
First, many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.
Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring (in opposition to common sense) that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply put, that what is true for others might not be true for themselves. But this is madness – this also turns its back on productive thinking. This idea is called “solipsism,” and it refers to the notion that every person lives in his own reality, and what is true in his or her life might not be true for others. This is an old idea and it was shown to be ridiculous many centuries ago. Think about it – if it solipsism really was real, there wouldn’t be any books, schools, learning, or science. And people would never be able to communicate effectively.
Thirdly, the statement that “you cannot prove a negative” is simply false. On the surface, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think God exists” and Person B says “I don’t think God exists,” it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a God. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:
Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to North America
Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist – no one even knows what God is supposed to be.
You sound extremely challenged scientifically when you say things like this.
I'm no scientist, either, but I understand concepts as basic as anomolies, and trends. It's ironic that trends can go one way, with overwhelming agreement, for decades, but when one year comes along, and a few more skeptics, it's "definitive" for you.
It reveals an agenda, but it's not based in science.
Did you read that story about the oceans rising a lot faster than scientests had previously predicted? I thought Dano or Tinfoil might post it, but I haven't seen it here yet.
I don't understand too much about the science behind this. I want to. There is this panel on it that they NY Times was advertising this Sunday. It's in February. I think I might go, and hopefully learn something. Maybe Dano will be speaking?
I haven't read it. It would have been nice if you had posted it.
What am I your servant? Now I'll have to go find it. Hold on.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/26/report-sea-levels/
According to a new report led by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. “faces the possibility of much more rapid climate change by the end of the century than previous studies have suggested.” The report, commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, found that global sea levels could rise higher than a 2007 U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study had concluded:
In one of the report’s most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea levels could rise as much as 4 feet by 2100. The intergovernment panel had projected a rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the last two years show the world’s major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice in the Alps.
According to a new report led by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. “faces the possibility of much more rapid climate change by the end of the century than previous studies have suggested.” The report, commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, found that global sea levels could rise higher than a 2007 U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study had concluded:
In one of the report’s most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea levels could rise as much as 4 feet by 2100. The intergovernment panel had projected a rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the last two years show the world’s major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice in the Alps.
Topspin
Verified User
this was expected since $4/gal gas does not polute nearly as bad
We will have to see how next year goes with the cheaper gas.
It will be a long time till we see a post this retarded. Unless asshat ups his quota
Topspin
Verified User
Failed analogy, Onceler. And I did point out that it was a good article.
If I said that I could punch you in the face, it would be true. But it would not mean that I have, nor that I want to. That is the difference.
Anybody "could" attack the US. Not everybody plans it. Again, a difference between "could" and "want to".
So... Do you see a difference in the words, "article that says the seas are rising faster" and "article that says that the seas could rise faster"?
Thanks. I wrote something else after that, but it's too nasty even for me; I blushed!
I don't have time for your word games now, I have to run out. But I'll be back.