Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Yes, and although I have not ridden motorcycles much at all, Ihave ridden a bicycle around the neighborhoods, and the differences in temperature are remarkable from area to area. It seems to depend upon the amount of pavement, the vegetation and types, and the moisture, such as irrigated areas or times when yards are being watered, etc.

It is simple common sense to approach the subject of climate by first demanding a set of strict standards for weather stations and data collection, standards that have been tested and proven to be reliable and as close to accurate as is practically possible.

I will post this again, because it clearly shows that the standards have not been met. The results are frankly embarrassing for a scientific issue as seemingly important as this one has been trumped up to be.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

You have missed the point. How much carbon has been around as a percentage of the atmosphere in the past ? Throughout earth's history carbon has been DECREASING in the atmosphere. Why didnt these disasters said to be imminent happen before ?

Has man's contribution plus natural causes exceeded a theoretical tipping point ? We havent had that tipping point in the past. What is it exactly ? No guesses now.

More carbon dioxide means trees breath easier. Especially in the oceans which are the lungs of the planet. Dont believe that bullshit about rain forests, that is only because hippies cant scuba dive.

Lefties love to blame man. They have some inferiority/meglomania complex that drives them to run others down as not being good enough. Man is ruining the planet and if only we would do what they say...

There has to varying degrees, always been a religion called gnosticism based on special knowledge. Hippies have it, greenies have it, and scientists who support Global Warming have it...but no-one else.

How will we stop Global Warming if it does exist and if it is caused by man ? The formulas are bizare and will largely be ineffectual.

Man made carbon has undergone a dramatic sudden increase. But man made carbon has done that before. Greece, a barren rocky group of islands and isthmuses, used to be covered in trees, as did Europe and America. Man has produced a lot of carbon before not just in one hit.

No-one knows. It probably hasnt because of the amount of carbon in the past. Previously it has been up to 10 times more than now.

I know you feel important because you have an issue and it makes you feel alive, but this is not about you. It is about others and I have no faith in people like you to get it right. I want facts. Global Warming is a guess. It might be right, but it probably isnt. It most certainly can not be proven. Look up "scientifically proven".

I read and re-read that laughing out loud. Eventually I wiped away the tears and have to admit you are one very wity person, okie. Global Warming Thuggees and common sense ? That is hilarious ! They have no common sense, and appealing to them to be sensible is the kind of association of two bizarre ideas that is the hall mark of great comedy. Thanks mate, you put a smile on my dial.

They clearly have no understanding of thermo-dynamics or how to achieve accurate data. Dont they teach the scientific method in year one of uni in the rest of the world ? They certainly emphasise it here.

What makes you think I have an "issue?" Since you're a newbie on a2k, you haven't seen any of my perception on global warming; simply put, I don't believe the current end of the world scenario, but believe it's a good idea to minimize carbon output as much as possible. That's in a nutshell to you!

If you find anything of variance from this, please let me know.

If I was in error by statement or inference about you then I apologise.

For my part, I am very concerned that we have a great system for determing technology improvements and driving the marketing of goods. It is called money. Governments interfere with this method at their peril.

If we are to limit anything, it should be poisons. People go psycho over radioactivity fears, but this is a result of very sucessful Soviet Cold War properganda. Poisons, man-made non-carbons, are killing us and the environment through cancers and longevity in the food chain. No-one goes psycho over a new plasma TV but that is where the real issue lies.

Carbon is not a concern as it is the least provable of all the greenhouse gases. The other green house gases can go either way, heat or cool, usually cool, but the obvious one that needs no proof is water. If they are concerned about green house gases, why dont they try to limit the water in the atmosphere ? That would be fun to watch.

Do you have any knowledge of how heat is absorbed, retained and radiated ?
Wrong. The total amount of heat is what matters. Temperature has not been averaged, the mid point between maximum and minimum temp is used for conveniance sake. The argument is that the earth is getting hotter, not that the average mid point temperature is getting higher. If you cant see the difference then ask someone to explain it.

Since you posted that again okie, would you point out which ones have problems with automobiles reflecting into the box? I'm just curious if you can find even one.

So, Ionus how does the average midpoint get higher if the high and/or low have not gotten higher?

Perhaps you can enlighten us with your wonderful knowledge.

More then you, sir. That much is plainly obvious.

[/quote]

Are you quite sure about this? I just want to ask before we move on where you get your data from, to make that assertion. I also wonder if you realize that average temperatures - taken daily - from monitoring stations were the topic under discussion, not the average temp. of the Earth's atmosphere as a whole.

Cycloptichorn

That statement ci. sits oddly with your well known propensity to spend all your spare time in travel agent's shops looking for somewhere unusual to go and then going.

Bearing in mind your international travel record I presume that what you mean is that the lower orders should minimise carbon output. Not you yourself.

Again, they do not take the average. They take the mid-point. The two can be radically different. Weather drives the min and max of any daily cycle, that is why they are called weather stations and not climate stations. To be accurate, one would have to measure the total amount of heat retained over a long term. Using the mid-point temp provided by poorly sited measuring stations is not worth the time to collect it.

parados you promised me you wouldnt talk to me. How disappointing of you !

An error can cause an increase or a decrease or per chance, stay the same as accurate data. Didnt you know that ?

Where do you derive this assertion from? Just wondering.

Cycloptichorn

I am just curious if Ionus can give an example of 2 numbers where the midpoint is different from the average.

As an obvious example, temp is an unreliable measure of heat for water at 0 deg and 100 deg C. With weather, one has to assume that heat (the main driver of weather) is a bell shape curve for the mid point to be meaningful. Assuming the mid point is also the average is inaccurate. Clearly, the heat in a location throughout the day will not follow a bell shape.

The midpoint between 2 numbers is a bell shaped curve?

My question - for the third time - is, 'where are you getting your data from, that they use the mid-point and not the average of temperatures from these stations?'

Cycloptichorn

Certainly. On a particular day the min temp is -10 deg C and the max temp is 10 deg C. The mid point is 0 deg C. The average temp on analysing the temp every min is -5 deg C. The difference is because it was freezing most of the day but warmed up in the afternoon when the sun came out, but then became cold later at night. The mid point and the average are only the same in parabolic, exponential, "bell shaped" and limited straight line graphs. School level mathematics, if you can find a text book and brush up on it.

Wrong. Bell shape curves apply to some areas, characteristics of human population is the first one that springs to mind. Clearly this is beyond your comprehension.

Oh.. so the midpoint of the high and low is the same as the average of high and low. You just want to argue that it isn't the average of some selected other numbers.

You claimed the midpoint of the high/low was not the same as the average while not specifying what you were averaging. So, it's your English skills that are lacking.