Global Cooling

[Aethix 129]

Ah, yes, the hockey stick graph. Which has been proven false because the spike was calculated using different methods than the rest of the graph. Great research there.

Also, the Warmmongering scientists will not release the raw data they use. That's because the data they use is cherrypicked. There is one example in which scientist were looking at hundreds of trees for tree-ring data and picked the ones that best supported Global Warming Theory.

Also, global temperatures have been going down since 1998. Many scientists have admitted the existence of the cooling trend. What do you have to say to that.

[randomfan 0]

I say, look at the big picture. Things will vary year to year, but the trend is still upward. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png )

And of the hottest years recorded (dating back to the mid-1800s), the top ten have all been within twenty years, with 2005 being the warmest on record. It really doesn't seem like the temperature is going down. You are right, the hockey stick graph used extremely flawed data, but the overall shape isn't that much different from what other researchers have found. (Look at the link above.)

Again, please give me an example of a time that scientists deliberately withheld data because it did not support the climate change theory. You did say the tree-ring study but what study was that, exactly?

[Ops 2]

Welcome to the internet, where truths are lies and lies are truths. The very idea that we can even begin to process how heat changes over countless centuries is bogus.

Besides, one big volcano goes off, covers the earth with ash and we have ourselves an ice age. Chaos is the underlying principle of our world.

[Aethix 129]

I say, look at the big picture. Things will vary year to year, but the trend is still upward. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png )

And of the hottest years recorded (dating back to the mid-1800s), the top ten have all been within twenty years, with 2005 being the warmest on record. It really doesn't seem like the temperature is going down. You are right, the hockey stick graph used extremely flawed data, but the overall shape isn't that much different from what other researchers have found. (Look at the link above.)

Again, please give me an example of a time that scientists deliberately withheld data because it did not support the climate change theory. You did say the tree-ring study but what study was that, exactly?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

Read it. Read all three pages.

[Jo-Bengt 0]

I say, look at the big picture. Things will vary year to year, but the trend is still upward. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png )

For some reason, this graph doesn't make sense to me.

The carbon dioxide that comes from the burning of fossil fuels causes the ozone layer to deplete, right?

So why were the 1800's and early 1900's cold in comparison to everything outside of the "Little Ice Age," when we burnt so much back then we probably had smoke billowing from our asses?

[randomfan 0]

That's true. I don't know the exact reason for this (I'll find out, though) but I'm guessing it has to do with population. We did burn a lot of stuff then (coal, wood, witches), but compare it to now. The population by 1920 was about a billion, and it has increased sixfold scince then. Modern industry also is more prolific, burning more fuel to accommodate the wants and needs of the growing population. And carbon dioxide isn't what causes the ozone layer to deplete, that would be CFCs and other halocarbons. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#The_ozone_hole_and_its_causes )

Aethix: I did read the article, and agree with most of it. There is no reason scientists should withhold their data. But tree rings aren't the only way of proving the existence of global climate change. Henry David Thoreau kept such detailed records of the world around him that scientists are now analyzing them to determine what the weather was like in the nineteenth century. Based on his observations, they have found that spring now comes two weeks earlier.

[Aethix 129]

Actually, recent research shows that there is a significant possibility that CFCs are not responsible for ozone depletion. So thousands of Africans may have needlessly died of food poisoning for no reason. Environmentalism FTW!

[Ops 2]

Meet chaos theory. The fact is, there are too many variables, between ozone, the sun itself, the speed at which our planet rotates, and a whole slew of other things. If all it takes is ONE volcano to screw up years of predictions, and we have several on our planet, can you really say that it even matters in the long run? Besides, eventually, we will be able to PRODUCE ozone, and then it "won't" be a problem.

[Aethix 129]

Oh wait, I remembered something. On topic, no less:

[Eight-bit link 3]

Ozone on the ground is actually bad. It smells burned. You (I think) can make ozone by building up static. Ever smell that burnt smell when you shuffle across a carpet? ozone.

[Ops 2]

Aethix, I love that song.

[randomfan 0]

Okay, a few points to make here. Firstly: Awesome video, Aethix. It made my day.

Second: CFCs are quite responsible for ozone depletion. Trust me; I asked two science teachers about it. Also, ozone depletion=dying Africans? How does that work?

Oh, and I found out why ozone holes don't let CO₂ escape. The ozone layer is in place to keep ultraviolet rays from flooding the Earth any more than they normally do. It doesn't really have anything to do with CO₂.

And lastly, an addition. Fossil fuel burning was indeed more wasteful in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but only in the US and UK. Scince then we've reduced our emissions by only a fraction, while other countries (Japan, China, India, you name it) have started burning fuels as well. As a result, we have much more CO₂ in the atmosphere now than a century or two ago. (And I checked this with my history teacher, as well as the two science teachers.)

[Aethix 129]

Second: CFCs are quite responsible for ozone depletion. Trust me; I asked two science teachers about it. Also, ozone depletion=dying Africans? How does that work?

The cheapest refrigerants emit CFCs when used. Therefore, they were banned. Poor Africans could not afford the more expensive refrigerants, so they basically get to choose between malnutrition or food poisoning. Fun. But hey, we're saving the ozone! Maybe! That's totally worth killing a few thousand poor Africans!

[randomfan 0]

Forgive me if I doubt the credibility of that story; but I have neither seen nor heard anything of it. Assuming that it is true: The poor Africans you speak of would have to buy one of the cheaper refrigerators, which would likely break down within months. The CFCs released will open a hole in the ozone layer, allowing ultraviolet rays to enter and give the Africans skin cancer. That's even more fun. Not to mention the cheap fridges probably contain other harmful chemicals. The best solution? Solar powered fridges. They're already being used in parts of Africa.

[Cirt 612]

Did anyone see where the Global Warming thing was held in Washington, D.C. to announce new information about how bad it's getting, then being cancelled due to blizzard?

rofl.

The only thing that's actually crap is the assumption that we're causing global warming.

Sure, CFCs may "hurt" the ozone layer, but when the entire thing is gone, Earth might not be around, you know?

Because the Sun will eat us, figuratively speaking.

We just bought into all of Al Gore's propaganda. "HAY GAIZ I INVENTED THE INTERWEBS."

Pfffft.