I can recommend this, too.
climatologist mann cleared of misconduct charges - Page 7
Forum Index > General Forum |
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
I can recommend this, too. | ||
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
On July 06 2010 10:31 MadVillain wrote: Bhaha get owned Gregsen. It is obvious from your posts that you don't understand basic scientific principals. Humans release of billions upon billions of tons of CO2 (as well as other greenhouse gases, CO2 is luckily less potent then methan or nitrous oxide for example) has had an obvious measurable effect on global temperatures. This HAS been 'proven' (i don't use the word proven without quotes because in science you can't really prove something 100% only disprove of it) through 1000s of peer reviewed papers. I don't know what else I can tell you but that the research has been done and it all points unequivocally towards human made global warming. Now you claim we should spend more time on 'saving animals from extinction', but do you realize that global warming is going to cause more animals to go extinct than anything humans have done before? With the cause for global warming well established, its obvious that renewable energy technologies are the answer to the problem. If you're so uneducated about a subject don't try to talk about it. dude, just shut up, read my last arguments, and understand that zch is referring to a DIFFERENT source. Seriously, how old are you? Also, understand that, much more likely than being the end of the world, global warming has a positive effect on our environment. Maybe that helps you, as global warming is something you can't stop anyway. | ||
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
While you link a youtube video I link this: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm | ||
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
On July 06 2010 10:39 MadVillain wrote: The 'interests' of the IPCC? What exactly are the 'interests' of the IPCC? This leads me to believe that you are buying into some sort of conspiracy theroy, and people who believe that sort of unsubstantiated garbage tend to ignore logic, and the simple fact of the matter. While you link a youtube video I link this: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm hahaha ![]() ![]() How about you watch it first before saying that it completly denies logic? That'd be very kind. | ||
MadVillain
United States402 Posts
And please, how can you completely discredit one Max Planck Institute just because you believe its serving someone's interests, yet use another to 'disprove' global warming? With that said the description from your youtube video: "This film by the documentary-maker Martin Durkin presents the arguments of scientists and commentators who don't believe that CO2 produced by human activity is the main cause of climate change. It's all to scare the shit out of us folks! The Illuminati set this up to make us, the people of the world, the problem. Don't believe it! Resist the New World Order!!!!" lol ok, the illuminati wtf? | ||
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
![]() I recommend you to watch it though, as it is way more direct and clear than all of the sources you've posted..or at least part 3 of 9. ![]() | ||
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
| ||
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
| ||
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:11 Romantic wrote: LMAO Gregsen literally got his arguments from a bad documentary on Youtube. You are so right. I didn't read anything about this topic, not a single study from IPCC and the Max Planck Institute Hamburg, and didn't talk to a lot of meteorologists concerning that matter. I am also very bad at things like physics and biology.I didn't post this video so everybody could get at least a little bit of a different perspective rather than the totally one-sided media, no, it was my only source. Also, how is this documentary bad? Guess I'm outta here, since I made every point I was trying to make, and no point got neglected by evidence so far. | ||
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
![]() | ||
Gregsen
Germany667 Posts
On July 06 2010 11:20 Romantic wrote: Bye Gregson! Have a nice day! ![]() you too buddy, no hard feelings ![]() btw: 40 years ago, we were afraid of global cooling! Oh, my bad, I got this information from my father, guess that doesn't count. ![]() | ||
rredtooth
5459 Posts
| ||
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On July 06 2010 10:24 Gregsen wrote: Zch, this is not the source I referred to. Your link is guiding to the Max Planck Institute in Jena, I am referring to the Max Planck Institute in Hamburg. Those are two entirely different Institutes, difference being that the Institute in Hamburg isn't serving the interests of IPCC. There are a lot of Max-Planck-Institutes in Germany (insert smug little winky-face here). Are you aware that there has been a medieval warming period between 800 and 1450, warmer than the one we are facing today, followed by a "mini iceage" with temperatures below average between 1450 and 1850? This is where all the graphs are starting, and as you can see, there's a good reason for it. you really need to keep on searching for new information. ![]() Gregson you mean the report from the Max Planck Institute Hamburg which says "According to the calculations of scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, over the next century the climate will change more quickly than it ever has in the recent history of the earth. These results come from the latest climate model calculations from the German High Performance Computing Centre for Climate and Earth System Research. The global temperature could rise by up to four degrees by the end of the century. Because of this warming, the sea level could rise on average by as many as 30 centimeters. In addition to the findings about the complex interplay between atmosphere and ocean, the current climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the earth's carbon cycle. The results confirm speculations over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming." The institute you are talking about not only agrees with man-made climate change, it is giving one of the more radical outlooks out of most of the speculations I've seen. The Max-Planck Institute is the Max-Planck Institute regardless of which place the document comes from. Also the director of that documentary you linked, also made a documentary saying that silicon boobs are healthy for women and prevent cancer. Seriously, do you really know wtf you are talking about? | ||
.zch
37 Posts
1) Quote from sciencedaily.com news article: Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg In addition to the findings about the complex interplay between atmosphere and ocean, the current climate models from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology also include new findings about the effects of aerosols and the influence of the earth's carbon cycle. The results confirm speculations over recent years that humans are having a large and unprecedented influence on the climate and are fuelling global warming. Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051001100632.htm Sorry buddy. You're just not right. 2) If you truly think that all the people partaking in a world-wide academic invitational meeting like the "WMO/IAEA Meeting of Experts on Carbon Dioxide, Other Greenhouse Gases, and Related Tracer Measurement Techniques" are all somehow lackeys of the IPCC, then there's really not much hope for you. This isn't some sort of cool-kids club where only people published in one of the IPCC reports are allowed to join, it's an academic meeting. PS: Funny that the report I cited from Max Planck Institute in Jena actually had nothing to do with IPCC whereas your Institute in Hamburg that you hold in such high regard directly reported to the IPCC, as shown in the article. ![]() EDIT: Touche, Sluggaslamoo. It's good to see that other people are checking his sources as well. You beat me to it with the quote; I took a Day[9] break. GG, well done. | ||
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On July 05 2010 17:38 love1another wrote: You're using yearly measurements. If you use the daily measurements, your confidence interval shrinks by a factor of sqrt(~365) and it is then statistically significant. Calculating daily variability of climate doesn't increase your confidence interval, because you use a less statistically relevant amount of time. We have 800,000 years of ice core data of the earth. Will one day be more accurate, or 100 years? What you are suggesting is that picking one person randomly would be more accurate than sampling thousands. On July 05 2010 12:40 zeppelin wrote: i would love to see them, especially if they all missed the point you think they're making as embarrassingly as that sciencedaily link you provided And what you don't understand is that my post didn't have anything to do with statistical accuracy, something that goes way over your head. So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking. ![]() ![]() | ||
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
On July 06 2010 12:21 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So arctic ice is shrinking... and yet antarctic ice is growing. If temperature was increasing, both would be shrinking. what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades | ||
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
if the temperature was increasing, it would be getting warmer there too | ||
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
2. I hope you understand on a basic level how and economy works. Producing such technologies requires huge industrial investment, that includes money, materials, and people. Producing these technologies gives jobs and increases wealth to many people (not just some fictional tyrant who is 'king of wind power' I'm sorry, I just have to say, that made me laugh so much. I'm also waiting on Gregsen's response to all the sources being posted lol. | ||
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
On July 06 2010 12:46 zeppelin wrote: what? how does that make any logical sense at all? a thought experiment: suppose the entire northern hemisphere gets exactly 10 degrees warmer suppose the entire southern hemisphere gets exactly 2 degrees colder in this situation the average temperature of the earth has now gone up even though it did not go up in every single area (or even a majority of areas) how can you possibly believe that this flimsy butchering of logic disproves all of the satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. These Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion. -Robert Anton Wilson | ||
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote: What you fail to understand, is that we have two arctic area's on the earth. You are trying to say that the northern hemisphere's arctic ice is more representative than southern ice. Why not say the eastern ice is more important than western ice then? Maybe the earth is warmer on the top because it has a fever? Antarctic ice is up 45% since the 1980's, yet the 7% decline in arctic ice is obviously more important. Now what "satellite and geological data collected over the last several decades" are you referring to? What you also fail to understand in that if CO2 caused warming, we wouldn't even need to look at industrial age CO2 production. We would just look at over 800,000 years or CO2 measurements and temperatures that have been collected. Simply put, there is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperatures. ![]() Nope, none whatsoever. On July 09 2010 14:45 SnK-Arcbound wrote: As for things about the original report; It's called 'The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review", but the university paid for and solicited the report. Yeah, the leadership of the university ordered a third party to investigate one of their departments for fraud, because keeping frauds within the walls of your research university means that the good name of your university is tarnished. | ||
| ||