Oh boy, I love it!!! Very interesting read; love to hear your thoughts but please read the entire article before jumping to conclusion.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Yeah, just saw this on reddit... the global mean surface temperature is a lousy metric for measuring radiative imbalance and that's all there really is to it

I would like to see some true data.

 

Bob Carter, who wrote the article in the OP, has apparently

long since been detached from science reality.

the global mean surface temperature is a lousy metric for measuring radiative imbalance and that's all there really is to it

 

What would be the prefered method?

I would like to see some true data.

 

Bob Carter' date=' who wrote the article in the OP, has apparently[/quote']

 

I don't know much about the dude. Can you back that up or are you just pooping on the dude because it doesn't match your opinion?

What would be the prefered method?

 

Ocean heat content rather than SST, which has been employed for decades and was recently used in Hansen 2005, the "smoking gun of anthropogenic climate change" paper

Oh boy' date=' I love it!!! Very interesting read; love to hear your thoughts but please read the [b']entire[/b] article before jumping to conclusion.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

 

Would also like to see more proof. I see it as the more [ce]CO2[/ce] we put into the atmosphere the greater the greenhouse effect... Interesting read though

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

here is a weblog refuting Bob Carter - comment 4 by Scott Church is well written.

Upper atmosphere temperatures are far more important than surface temperatures, as these don't fluctuate as much...

I don't know much about the dude. Can you back that up or are you just pooping on the dude because it doesn't match your opinion?

I not only disagree with him, I have evidence to prove him wrong. If he would actually think about what is happening, he would realize that he doesn't know what he's probably wrong.

 

Do research...may I suggest livescience?

 

250 posts, yay!

Well, he is a professor of Geology but I had a few nutty professors back in school. I'll take it with a grain of salt.

 

Anyways....what do you guys think of this one?

 

 

You may be interested to know that global warming' date=' earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

[/quote']

 

Well' date=' he is a professor of Geology but I had a few nutty professors back in school. I'll take it with a grain of salt.

 

Anyways....what do you guys think of this one?

 

 

 

[img']http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg[/img]

Haha.

You serious? I don't know you well enough to tell.

Just because one variable happens to decrease as time progresses and another increases doesn't prove any correlation. I'm assuming you are joking though

Haha.

You serious? I don't know you well enough to tell.

Just because one variable happens to decrease as time progresses and another increases doesn't prove any correlation. I'm assuming you are joking though

 

 

Correlation ALWAYS means causation...

 

Or is that doesn't... I forget...

 

Anyway if we think about it the pirets out at sea dissuading shipping, shipping creates polution... makes pefect sence...

No, it's just that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is punishing us for eliminating pirates by raising the temperatures.

Uh oH! Does that mean if we have no pirates the temperature will become infinite.

 

I've got the answer! Maybe Rumsfeld and Cheney can train a few thousand.

The answer is yes, and then it started again.

 

Next.

The fact that global warming from 1999 to 2005 was essentially non existent probably does not mean too much. I have heard this statistic from other sources also, and it appears to be correct. I regard the cooling from 1940 to 1976 as being more meaningful, during a time of severe increase in greenhouse gases.

 

However, you may be interested to know that, during this latest non warming period, carbon dioxide emissions actually doubled.

I think carbon dioxide levels have only reached significant levels very recently, like the last 5 years, so if people really insist on waiting for empirical evidence of global warming they may have to wait, but I think they shouldn't have to wait too much longer. As for evidence of deforestation and charcoal burning and fossil fuel burning causing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to increase, I am not sure you need much further evidence of that, though more is always good, and it is important to determine how long an extra ton will stay up there, regardless of the source.

 

Life is inherently complex and non-linear however. No two years will ever be the same. The past will never predict the future with certaintly. Some things you will always have to leave to good taste and common sense. The fact that there is a good chance that 1 billion people will die this century of war, famine, and disease should mean something. It's not enough to say we didn't cause it if we can help prevent it. We need to be responsible, and part of that means being very clear about what is scientific discourse and what is political rhetoric. We need to make our intentions and motives clear, and whether we are engaged in one, or the other.