Global warming?

[Shawnee123]

Speaking of Global Warming, they say we might have a half an inch of Global Warming on the ground tomorrow! wtf? It's almost the end of March!

[Undertoad]

That was the first thing that struck me, that he's saying the ocean waters are rising 5mm a year for the last ten years. Nobody in GW is making that claim. They are saying more like 2mm. So the Bay of Bombay has now risen, according to him, 30mm higher than the rest of the world. ORLY?

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That was the first thing that struck me, that he's saying the ocean waters are rising 5mm a year for the last ten years. Nobody in GW is making that claim. They are saying more like 2mm. So the Bay of Bombay has now risen, according to him, 30mm higher than the rest of the world. ORLY?

Seems to me that Al Gore said something about 20 foot increase in sea levels.

[Undertoad]

He deftly avoided putting any time frame on that prediction. That's 6096 mm so at the current rate, so if it does not change, the sea level will rise that high by the year 5058.

[morethanpretty]

Real cause of global warming:


I for one, plan on doing my part to correct this!

[tw]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Real cause of global warming:
PiratesVsTemp[/IMG]

Global warming means typhoons in the waters off Somolia. God sweeping pirates from the face of the oceans. The chart is accurate.

[classicman]

[classicman]

.

[classicman]

And an interesting article here

[classicman]

Published: April 14 2010 19:51

A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.

Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.

“It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming],” he said.

The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”.

The e-mails were hacked last autumn from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They caused a storm, as they appeared to show scientists manipulating and concealing data.

Although Wednesday’s report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK’s prestigious national science academy – exonerated the unit’s scientists, it criticized climate experts for failures in handling statistics.

“It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded.

The hockey stick graph was a key part of the scandal. In the e-mails, UEA’s Professor Phil Jones referred to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures suggested by certain sources of data. A similar trick was used in the hockey stick graph.

The UEA scientists said that “trick” merely referred to a scientific technique – an explanation accepted by some skeptics, including Lord Lawson, former Tory chancellor.

Prof Hand said his criticisms should not be seen as invalidating climate science. He pointed out that although the hockey stick graph – which dates from a study led by US climate scientist Michael Mann in 1998 – exaggerates some effects, the underlying data show a clear warming signal.

link

[glatt]

"Prof Hand said his criticisms should not be seen as invalidating climate science. .... the underlying data show a clear warming signal."

So Prof Hand thinks that global warming is real. How does that vindicate global warming skeptics?

He's saying "the line shouldn't go up that much, it should go up this much. But it clearly goes up."

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't think there has ever been a question that it's warming up.
The question(s) are related to how fast, how far, why, and so what?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't think there has ever been a question that it's warming up.

On what level? There is very little dispute among the scientific community about it but there are a lot of people who still don't believe the Earth is warming. I heard a lot of people this winter taking shots at global warming because their isolated area was supposedly colder than usual.

[classicman]

So ... ... ...
What is Al Gore's plan to alter the earths orbit to avoid the warming?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

On what level? There is very little dispute among the scientific community about it but there are a lot of people who still don't believe the Earth is warming. I heard a lot of people this winter taking shots at global warming because their isolated area was supposedly colder than usual.

What they don't believe, is the scenarios of disaster and doom. The scientists pulling a tw, acting like they must be obeyed, doesn't help their case. Anyone that disputes it, won't get funding.