I think what he was trying to say was F = d(momentum)/over time (Conventionally used as (dp/dt), but only if mass is constant), or F=mass*dv/dt. The equation dm/dt*dv/dt =/= F.
CO2 rising since 1998, temps actually lowering. I suppose this data does not count? There almost appears to be an inverse relationship between temps and CO2 emissions. Why is that?
This "theory" of man-made CO2 causing temps to rise isn't even applicable to the most recent decade, and since records only go back ~100 years, it's a large enough data set to question this bunk science.
Can you guys post the link to the article behind that graph? Or, better yet, can you explain what MSU and Hadley temps are?
They are the two primary standards for assessing global temperature. The link to the graph is found by right-clicking the graph, and then copying the Properties link. Here is a wealth of information on the falling temps since 1998 versus the still-increasing CO2. http://www.google.com/search?q=hadl...s:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7
The graph that westnob presented goes only until 2000. Since then, according to what I've heard, global temps have actually been stabilizing or declining. Can anyone confirm this with a link or a graph?
That graph isn't a true representation of a steady climb, either. It plots points by how they deviate off of the mean, not the actual temperature. A legitimate graph would have ups and downs, with the past 10 years being a down cycle.
"The debate is over". It's too bad, because there are a lot of people being brainwashed. You know a victim of this brainwashing when you see the word "DENIER" used to refute data such as I posted.
Have you guys really dug into what that plot means? I don't have tons of time to fuss around with junk assertions, but the MSU and Hadley temp #'s are not mean temperatures -- they show temperature anomalies. Near as I can tell, positive numbers mean things are warming up and negative numbers mean things are cooling down. If I'm right about that (and I won't guarantee that I am), then you're essentially plotting rate of temp increase versus absolute CO2 measurements and that doesn't make much sense. The meaningful approach would be to plot temperature rate increase versus rate of CO2 increase. Edit: I forgot to add that this plot assumes no other variables impact temperature. The impact of particulates (natural or mandmade - industry, volcano eruptions, sandstorms, etc.), other greenhouse gases (carbon monoxide and others), solar flares etc. would need to be included.
So, you are speculating what then? That there is no climate shift? That it's the cause of giant apes living beneath the ground? That a comet perhaps is influencing the sun's affect on our planet? Perhaps that a large mass of algae on the ocean is disrupting current patterns (oh, no, wait, that's the Texas-sized pile of garbage in the Pacific that others deny exist as well). It's really too bad that some people just absolutely refuse to take any partial personal responsibility when these things happen. I don't think it's too much to ask that you recycle a couple of items rather than dumping them out. I think people get bogged down by these technical nuances of what is and isn't really happening. Suddenly it's changed from "there is no global warming!" to "well, there may be global warming but man is not proven to be the chief cause of global warming". Who the fuck cares? If we're even part of the problem then guess what? WE'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! No offense, Papa, you were always a great poster on ESPN but come on...
I'm not so sure that we are. The world's temperatures have fluctuated for hundreds and thousands of years. Way before there were any industrial CO2 emissions, the temperatures were going up and down. It seems to be a natural part of the earth's cycle, and has been going on for a long, long, long time . . . In the 1970's, Newsweek magazine published a cover story asking if the world was about to enter another ice age? That's how much the so-called "experts" know about global climate. For God's sake, the weathermen can't even predict the weather accurately two days from now. How can anyone tell what is going to happen 5, 10, or 20 years down the road?
For what it's worth, the UK's Met Office/Hadley Centre that generated the numbers used in your plot seems to have little doubt about this issue. See: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/ Summary here: Climate change facts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact 1 Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact 2 Temperatures are continuing to rise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact 3 The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact 4 Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact 5 If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact 6 Climate models predict the main features of future climate. Climate change mythsMyth 1 The intensity of cosmic rays changes climate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Myth 2 Drop in monthly global temperature means global warming has stopped.
Temperatures do fluctuate up and down naturally. The problem is that if humans augment a natural rise, there is the possibility that temperatures could rise enough to cause problems. I'm not talking about mankind being wiped out, but things like extinctions of more fragile lifeforms and decreased salination in the oceans (by the injection of fresh water currently held in ice) shutting down thermal currents can make life significantly more uncomfortable and lead to unexpected, longer-term problems...like releasing the frozen methane at the bottom of the oceans, triggering an enormous (and slowly accelerating) atmospheric build-up of methane in the atmosphere. Over hundreds or thousands of years, that can, conceivably, wipe out mankind. So, I don't think there's a global catastrophe lurking a few decades away, but I don't think man-made global warming is a hoax or completely harmless, either. Meteorology and climatology are two different sciences. They study different things and use different techniques to make predictions and models. The accuracy of weatherpeople isn't relevant to the accuracy of climate scientists.
Wow. Only HALF of climate change is caused by man? Awesome. I'm going to go light a victory cigar with a tree. That's so fucking stupid.
That's a strawman and not at all accurate regarding my position. I am saying that there is not even a correlating, let alone a causal, effect from CO2 emissions on temperature from 1998 to today. CO2 keeps increasing; temperatures decrease. Feel free to refute the data I posted. Me saying that CO2 emission are not causing the global warming = me not thinking the climate is changing? Pretty weird interpretation of my position, yak.
Not true. The temperatures have generally continued to increase over the past 10 years. Some years they've dipped slightly, but in the strong majority of years the temp increase has continued. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact2.html Edit: notice how the temps in your graph are generally greater than zero? That means temp is increasing.
