Ye Religion Thread

[reaper]

100 year natural warming trend? how come this is the warmest the earth has been in thousands of years, many cities are breaking all-time high temperature records, maps are having to be changed due to the melting of antarctica and greenland, and the rise in temperature is directly proportional to the rise in carbon emissions?

well as far as cities, the temperature data was wrong until about 2000, because we didn't take the "blacktop" effect into account.  this causes a one degree rise in temperature in cities.   ice has always melted, and there is no way to show whether it's related to natural effects, or global warming.  there is no way to tell if the rise in temperature is natural or increased because of global warming - we cannot predict four year weather patterns.  what we do know is the earth should be warming, because we are in the midst of a natural 100 year warming period.  why should we speak about junk science as fact.  the reason this bothers me, is because we make decisions before we know if we caused any problems, this isn't the way to go about things.  the decisions we make greatly effect third world countries, and actually cause tremendous loss of life.  we should identify the problem first - if there is one.

[DaHanG]

You honestly don

[DaHanG]

ice has always melted, and there is no way to show whether it's related to natural effects, or global warming.  there is no way to tell if the rise in temperature is natural or increased because of global warming - we cannot predict four year weather patterns. 

Ice has not always melted, throughout history it has also been formed. Why is it currently being melted? - Higher temperatures. Climatologists have said there is no evidence that the earth has warmed at this alarming rate before on a natural level throughout it's history (based on ice cores and other methods) - this is the first time it's been this fast. If volcanic ash (from a massive eruption, like that in the Philippines in 1991 can lower the global temperature pretty much instantly, then it's only fair (based on all the data available) to conclude there is an unignorable (strong) correlation between the warming and amount of CO2 put into our atmosphere.

why should we speak about junk science as fact.

You're the one who "knows" Stephen Hawking is wrong.

[reaper]

i don't believe or disbelieve in evolution. since i believe we don't know what's going on, how can i say some outside influence isn't altering things or creating the universe.

[metaL]

indeed, ice has not always melted.  your claim that this is all propaganda would stand a better chance if this was strictly an american concern, but people all over the world are realizing that this is a problem which should not be ignored.

[reaper]

your claim that this is all propaganda would stand a better chance if this was strictly an american concern, but people all over the world are realizing that this is a problem which should not be ignored.

that isn't my claim

[DaHanG]

i don't believe or disbelieve in evolution. since i believe we don't know what's going on, how can i say some outside influence isn't altering things or creating the universe.  if something creates the universe, i would say that something is part of the explanation of life.  on a natural level evolution describes how you get complex life from simple life (once you have a universe), since it's a good description of things i believe in evolution to an extent.

Evolution does not state whether or not it

[reaper]

Ice has not always melted, throughout history it has also been formed. Why is it currently being melted? - Higher temperatures. Climatologists have said there is no evidence that the earth has warmed at this alarming rate before on a natural level throughout it's history (based on ice cores and other methods) - this is the first time it's been this fast. If volcanic ash (from a massive eruption, like that in the Philippines in 1991 can lower the global temperature pretty much instantly, then it's only fair (based on all the data available) to conclude there is an unignorable (strong) correlation between the warming and amount of CO2 put into our atmosphere.

so you still think this holds true, because there are other human causes for warming besides C02, and from 1940 to 2000 the temperature of the earth (human reading which finally took the blacktop effect into account) show a rise of .1 degrees celius?

[DaHanG]

Ice has not always melted, throughout history it has also been formed. Why is it currently being melted? - Higher temperatures. Climatologists have said there is no evidence that the earth has warmed at this alarming rate before on a natural level throughout it's history (based on ice cores and other methods) - this is the first time it's been this fast. If volcanic ash (from a massive eruption, like that in the Philippines in 1991 can lower the global temperature pretty much instantly, then it's only fair (based on all the data available) to conclude there is an unignorable (strong) correlation between the warming and amount of CO2 put into our atmosphere.

so you still think this holds true, because there are other human causes for warming besides C02, and from 1940 to 2000 the temperature of the earth (human reading which finally took the blacktop effect into account) show a rise of .1 degrees celius?

You must have misread. I said a .3 degree difference Celsius. The difference in temperature based on how it feels to us physically isn

[reaper]

It has been concluded that there is just over a 5% chance that this increase in temperature can be a direct result of natural variation (which is considered pretty low).

that's quite a ridiculous claim, considering just in 2000 scientists didn't take into account the blacktop effect, which warms cities by 1 degree - the list goes on.

what about before 1940, what do you think triggered warming (by humans) besides CO2.

[DaHanG]

It has been concluded that there is just over a 5% chance that this increase in temperature can be a direct result of natural variation (which is considered pretty low).

that's quite a ridiculous claim, considering just in 2000 scientists didn't take into account the blacktop effect, which warms cities by 1 degree - the list goes on.

Science has nothing to do with it, it is simple statistics based on data open for everyone. I wouldn't consider that ridiculous.

what about before 1940, what do you think triggered warming (by humans) besides CO2. 

CO2 was still a factor before 1940, just not as big as a factor. There is more than one greenhouse gas that industrialization has been responsible for.

[reaper]

Science has nothing to do with it, it is simple statistics based on data open for everyone.

statistics based on what information? what are you doing with the statistics to come to the conclusion warming isn't natural effects?

[DaHanG]

Science has nothing to do with it, it is simple statistics based on data open for everyone.

statistics based on what information?

Statistics based on yearly global average temperatures from the late 19th century to now.

what are you doing with the statistics to come to the conclusion warming isn't natural effects?

 
There is a concept called natural variation in statistics. For example, if it normally rains 30 inches per year in Washington with a standard deviation of 5 inches, it would be a pretty freaky year if it rained 44 inches (statistically speaking). You wouldn't expect this to happen in any one particular year. The same concept is applied to this warming change in climate over this single period of a century. It doesn't mean it can't happen, it just means it's unlikely (and suggests there may be other factors influencing this outcome).

The statistics suggest that there is a slightly higher chance than 5% that the global warming over the last century can be a result of natural variation. This is called a T-test. It's a simple statistical concept.

science isn't involved?

In gathering the data, yes. In the statistical analysis, no.

the conclusion that it is a five percent chance warming is soley from natural causes is pure garbage

From a statistical standpoint, it is the exact opposite.

[reaper]

There is a concept called natural variation in statistics. For example, if it normally rains 30 inches per year in Washington with a standard deviation of 5 inches, it would be a pretty freaky year if it rained 44 inches (statistically speaking). You wouldn't expect this to happen in any one particular year. The same concept is applied to this warming change in climate over this single period of a century. It doesn't mean it can't happen, it just means it's unlikely (and suggests there may be other factors influencing this outcome).

the problem is determining what is normal

[metaL]

well, i'd say its pretty ABNORMAL for so many cities setting record high temps for both winter and summer.  also, you might want to look at something more recent.

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report.htm