• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global "cooling"... debunked?

mhaze said:
Assuming your graph is fair, honest and complete, why wasn't there an increase in the trend during 1945-1975? The oil embargo didn't occur until after 1973. That event probably took some cars off the road, decreasing the amount of CO2, as did the US national 55 mph speed limit. Oil prices didn't get to their original level until early 1980's, but the trend increases before then.
​

Originally Posted by mhaze [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
These factors you mention have no correlation to global temperatures that is worth discussing.
​



For example, there was a study done which looked for correlation between fossil fuel use and global temperatures.

Nothing significant found.

Does that answer your question?
Click to expand...

A cite for that study?
 
MattusMaximus said:
Hey AAA, add ServiceSoon to the list of coolers.[/QUOTE}Not exactly.

lomiller said:
Hardly "confidential" Lundz is quite open about what he does, and his role in getting Republicans to switch from calling it "global warming" to "climate change" and why it was designed to benefit the denier argument.
Click to expand...
Confidential is the word the report used. It might have been designed to benefit the anti-GW crowd, but it does just the opposite for me.

Don't you hate it how evil republicans use word games? Like using the word denier instead of anti-GW?
Click to expand...
 
fsol said:
A cite for that study?
Click to expand...
There are scientific studies that show higher CO2 levels following higher temperatures. These studies are easy to find and available for free to those who know how to use yahoo.
 
ServiceSoon said:
There are scientific studies that show higher CO2 levels following higher temperatures. These studies are easy to find and available for free to those who know how to use yahoo.
Click to expand...

That might be so, but when mhaze is back, I am sure he will happily provide the cite for his correlation between fossil fuel use and global temperatures study. You know, the thing I was asking about, not the thing you seem to think I was asking about.
 
ServiceSoon said:
There are scientific studies that show higher CO2 levels following higher temperatures. These studies are easy to find and available for free to those who know how to use yahoo.
Click to expand...

Yes, this has happened several times in the past. How is this relevant to the current discussion?
 
ServiceSoon said:
There are scientific studies that show higher CO2 levels following higher temperatures. These studies are easy to find and available for free to those who know how to use yahoo.
Click to expand...
Of course, and most contributors to these threads are very familiar with them. They are well aware that most previous warmings were initiated by a forcing such as the Milankovitch cycles, and CO2 levels only started to rise once oceans/permafrost had warmed enough to start releasing it, whereupon the increased CO2 caused further warming - a classic positive feedback.

And?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I read it beofre and re-read it just then.
NASA don't seem to have included a date as to when they began to use Climate Change rather than anything else and it might be interesting to lnow when they did.

All that aside, I still don't see the problem here:
The IPCC has been in place since the late 80s and chose to use CC for their reasons.
NASA has been around for a long time and chooses to use the term for their reasons.
The 'republicans' follow suit later on adding more reasons.

And this is somehow sinister or controversial?

Makes no sense to me - you guys are reaching imo if you think there is something in this.
 
It was ServiceSoon that found it controversial:

"The global warming group changed the name to global climate change from global warming."
 
The entire intent of this thread reeks of ad hominem right from the get-go and serves no purpose other than.

Another words :

:catfight:
 
Let me be the first to say "Welcome to the muck hole Xephyr".
I hope your threads are strong, your posts are straight, and your rebuttals not too smelly.

Cheers Alfie :D
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Let me be the first to say "Welcome to the muck hole Xephyr".
I hope your threads are strong, your posts are straight, and your rebuttals not too smelly.

Cheers Alfie :D
Click to expand...

I appreciate the warm welcome, Alfie.

I have to wonder why a thread would be started for the only reason of sticking ones tongue out and blathering "neener neener neener" in, of all places, a science forum ?

It just seems to be quite a waste of forum space, IMHO.
 
Xephyr said:
I appreciate the warm welcome, Alfie.

I have to wonder why a thread would be started for the only reason of sticking ones tongue out and blathering "neener neener neener" in, of all places, a science forum ?

It just seems to be quite a waste of forum space, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Because global warming deniers started the exact counter part of this thread on numerous occasions. This was just to show how ridiculous they are for doing so.
 
The warmers love to play tit for tat - it is the psychology of the schoolyard - as usual.:p

:D
 
Reality, of course, is that global cooking is not a subject that is debunkable, but it is one that can be said to be not occurring, when solar scientists confirm a few things over the next couple years. Debunkable would just not seem the right term, so not only do warmers in this thread miss the facts, the logical method, and the evidence, but they ridicule the subject, which is not really something to joke about.
 
Pixel42 said:
Of course, and most contributors to these threads are very familiar with them. They are well aware that most previous warmings were initiated by a forcing such as the Milankovitch cycles, and CO2 levels only started to rise once oceans/permafrost had warmed enough to start releasing it, whereupon the increased CO2 caused further warming - a classic positive feedback.

And?
Click to expand...
Never heard it was a positive feedback...one causing the other in a never ending loop of doom.

The claim was that CO2 caused warming in the past. That was proven improbable because of the relationship you explained above fairly well, up until the positive feedback claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom