Earth Hour 2009

[Serclaes 0]

Yes, i have lived in a country where the king is the ultimate ruler. I was quite young, but i remember details like a more liberal approach to religion and corruption.

I also lived in a European country that is very proud and protective of itself, despite not being what it pretends to be.

The limited freedom of speech i am talking about is limited by the amount of flak someone gets for being patriotic or disagreeing with Israel. This may sound ridiculous, but it is still very easy in an argue to draw the "nazi card" which serves as kind of a joker. Don't get me wrong, I am for democracy and against the brown sauce. But dismissing a valid claim because the nazis had also the same view on things, is not what i call a fair argue. I'm not going to start and say "the nazis also did good things like the highways" because they simply didn't do any good things. Rather will i mention the debate for a german decoration for bravery. From 1813 to 1945 it was the "Eiserne Kreuz". The cross is also the sign of the Bundeswehr. But no, no the "Eiserne Kreuz" has a bad tradition since the nazis used it, even if it was created long before. This is the sort of thing i deplore.

As a funny coincidence, i am in the USA right now and i can say that i have rarely met a German soldier as proud as the soldiers here (having met/seen USMC, Army, Army ROTC and Air Force ROTC). But i don't think i am going to try your suggestion :P

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (someBoy @ Mar. 03 2009,23:43)

It is not like they are asking you to do something for their own benefit... It is the benefit of all of us (and that includes you).

Please don't do it for my benefit.

This does not benefit me.

Why not?

Because it encourages people who place fashion over form.

Those for whom the most pressing problem in the world is an impending enviromental apocalypse.

To wit, it encourages people with absolutely no problems in life of their own, to try to cause other people more problems, just because they are bored.

@ the democracy chaps above, most governments are democratic because they fell into the influence (usually militarily) of greater democratic powers.

Very few people on the planet have had the luxury of choosing their own political system.

For the bulk of us we are democratic because we were born into it.

We have had no say in our system of government and we are offered none.

The democratic system of government is best in the same way as our favourite football teams are best. Because we identify with it and share a sense of allegiance.

[mr.g-c 6]

For the record, i just looked through one of my more recent books and there i found it... The petition which already signed by more than 10.000 US scientists that the global warming stuff is a scam.

Today i looked and it was already over 30.000 scientific signers.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Baff1 0]

Global Warming ended in 1998.

Since then we have been in a period of Global Cooling.

(The Ice shelf grew by 30% last year).

Which is why no one speaks of it anymore and instead the political debate has been relabelled "Climate Change".

While I am also tempted to call it a scam as indeed many many people, most notably the IPCC and goverments are using it as an excuse to make money, it is also a new study.

Things are changing. Most of all, understanding is changing. Predictions at this early stage of the science are wild at best.

It isn't really fair to attribute the sensational claims to any deliberate attempt to defraud public information but rather as something to be expected in such a new and exciting field of intrest.

"To the best of our knowledge" allows for the argument to mutate as our exploration into the subject matter does.

What was true 10 years ago, is not true today.

[kavoven 4]

Never the less I can't detect any disadvantage when we change to greener energies.

[Spetz 0]

"Socialistic capitalism" is an oxymoron. Absence of capitalism is required for socialism.

State driven economies are both more efficient and democratic.

sir,

your statement "State driven economies are both more efficient and democratic." Is false, State driven economies are in fact monopolies. Monopolies face a downward facing demand curve, meaning if they wanted to sell more products they would have to reduce their prices, which means less revenue for them( which might challenge their sustainability or funding) the other thing they could do in order to maximize revenue would be to reduce quantity, resulting higher prices to consumer or even shortages (like toilet-paper in soviet Russia)

Also what are the incentives to improve efficiency in a state driven economy??(economic efficiency and technological)

what are the incentives to increase production in a communist state?

[echo1 0]

Don't get Spokesperson started...  He'll tell you that global warming was caused by the same people who framed Stalin for the purges

[someboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Because it encourages people who place fashion over form.

Those for whom the most pressing problem in the world is an impending enviromental apocalypse.

To wit, it encourages people with absolutely no problems in life of their own, to try to cause other people more problems, just because they are bored.

Quite a demagogic statement... I do have personal problems in my life, like everyone else I guess, and that does not prevent me from being aware other things which I may consider important.

Quote[/b] ]For the record, i just looked through one of my more recent books and there i found it... The petition which already signed by more than 10.000 US scientists that the global warming stuff is a scam.

Today i looked and it was already over 30.000 scientific signers.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I just checked the first name in that list, "Earl M. Aagaard", and look what I found:

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Aagaard_Earl_296724088.aspx

Dr. Earl Aagaard, of Pacific Union Colleges biology department, wrote The Importance of the Intelligent Design Theory for Seventh-day Adventists. He invites us to vaccinate ourselves against all seductive materialistic influences and to make it abundantly clear that we accept the Bible account of Creation as true.

He definitely seems to have a solid background on climate sciences. Can't check all the names, sorry, but I think they definitely have a problem of credential checking for people signing that petition.

Quote[/b] ]Since then we have been in a period of Global Cooling.

(The Ice shelf grew by 30% last year).

By growth you mean this?

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis....240.mpg

Or maybe NASA's data is scam as well?

Really, why all this "conspiracy theory"? I really don't get it, sorry.

[Baff1 0]

Never the less I can't detect any disadvantage when we change to greener energies.

The cost.

It's not the most efficient method of energy production.

Money that is spent there could be spent elsewhere.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Because it encourages people who place fashion over form.

Those for whom the most pressing problem in the world is an impending enviromental apocalypse.

To wit, it encourages people with absolutely no problems in life of their own, to try to cause other people more problems, just because they are bored.

Quite a demagogic statement... I do have personal problems in my life, like everyone else I guess, and that does not prevent me from being aware other things which I may consider important.

Quote[/b] ]Since then we have been in a period of Global Cooling.

(The Ice shelf grew by 30% last year).

By growth you mean this?

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis....240.mpg

Or maybe NASA's data is scam as well?

Really, why all this "conspiracy theory"? I really don't get it, sorry.

Misrepresenting NASA doesn't impress me.

By growth I mean growth.

Your animation stops in 2006. It is 2009.

My figures are the NASA figures from 2007-2008.

I will repeat.

The ice shelf grew 30% last year.

You don't want to believe it. That's up to you.

[someboy 0]

Climate study does not pretend to model year to year fluctuations, but long-term variations (in the order of decades) of diverse factors, such as temperature. Sorry, but by saying that the last's years value of ice shelf growth invalidates any theory of global warming is completely misleading.

Scientific evidence up to date tells us that global warming exists, and that it is PROBABLY (not positively) caused by humans. That "probably" should at least translate into efforts to determine this fact (common sense, from my point of view).

[Rhodite 3]

Ok chaps,

Just a gentle reminder, keep it civil,I have seen discussions on this subject get very heated and it would be a shame to see a well thought out discussion get ruined.

Thats all.

[Baff1 0]

Climate study does not pretend to model year to year fluctuations, but long-term variations (in the order of decades) of diverse factors, such as temperature. Sorry, but by saying that the last's years value of ice shelf growth invalidates any theory of global warming is completely misleading.

Scientific evidence up to date tells us that global warming exists, and that it is PROBABLY (not positively) caused by humans. That "probably" should at least translate into efforts to determine this fact (common sense, from my point of view).

Climate study most certainly does model year to year variations. A minute ago you posted me a link to the year to year variations over the north pole.

There is no weaseling out of it now those year to year variations no longer support your claims.

In short, the scientific evidence doesn't tell us anything of the sort.

Science attempts to accurately record data. How you attempt to interpret that data is closer to the realms of philosophy than it is to the realm of science.

Climate study doesn't model long term variations with any degree of accuracy.

It is a new science. The data set is too small.

The recent period of cooling was dismissed by global warming theorists as statistically within their variance. It could, they say, not be the beginings of the new downward trend (as predicted by the sunspot brigade), but infact simply be a mathmatical error.

A blip.

Unforunately, in saying this they admitted that their reliable variance was larger than the hockey stick curve. The same is equally mathematically true of their entire data set.

They have made a model based on an unreliable data set. In fact they have made many many models all based on the same unreliabel data set. Consequently all their predictions are wildly different, and so far, none of them ahve come true. Quite the opposite.

We are not in a period of Global Warming. Science does not tell us this.

Scientific evidence told us that we were up until ten years ago. (10/25 of the years they have been studying it).

Now scientific evidence tells us we are in a period of global cooling.

In fact, scientific evidence tells us we are ina  widely predicted period of global cooling.

Maybe, the man made warming theorists are right and this is a blip. Maybe the Sunspot theorists are right and this is an expected downturn.

Scientific evidence doesn't tell us. Science simply measures. Patiently and quietly.

For you that probably is enough.

For me, that probably, or even that "probably not", is nothing like enough to bet money on.

Certainly not enough to bet hundreds of billions on and devote the resources of a substantial porprotion of mankinds energies into.

I cannot think of anything more irresponsable than betting the livelyhood of hundreds of millions of people on a "probably".

In fact given that the current scientific best evidence suggests the exact opposite of global warming theory and given that we are in the midst of largest global recession in human history....

"Probably" doesn't cut it. Come back when you know more.

[kavoven 4]

Never the less I can't detect any disadvantage when we change to greener energies.

The cost.

It's not the most efficient method of energy production.

Money that is spent there could be spent elsewhere.

But the costs will be much higher when our natural resources have vanished.

I'm pro nuclear energy and far from calling myself green, but I guess its cheaper to start developing renewable energies now, when theres still enough time left.

And I like clean air

[someboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Climate study most certainly does model year to year variations. A minute ago you posted me a link to the year to year variations over the north pole.

There is no weaseling out of it now those year to year variations no longer support your claims.

Climate models used to try to predict global climate changes do not pretend to model year to year variations. There are many natural factors that have influence on a specific year temperature record (hurricanes, etc). Other factors, on the other hand, have a more long term influence. If you pretend to predict the temperature in 50 years from now, your model will not consider the first type of factors, but only the second. The first type will actually be used to estimate the variance of your model.

On the other hand, I don't see the problem of using year-to-year data in order to infer a long-term model. That's what I would do...

Quote[/b] ]Science attempts to accurately record data. How you attempt to interpret that data is closer to the realms of philosophy than it is to the realm of science.

False. Science is about recording data and interpreting data. The basics is: you go to the lab (or wherever you record your data), record some data, analyze it and try to come out with a model supporting that data. If you get new data that refutes your model, you start thinking of a new model that supports past and new evidence.

Quote[/b] ]Climate study doesn't model long term variations with any degree of accuracy.

It is a new science. The data set is too small.

Data about temperature has been recorded long before this "new science" emerged. Models do take into account the amount of data they have, and thus estimate the appropriate variance.

Quote[/b] ]The recent period of cooling was dismissed by global warming theorists as statistically within their variance. It could, they say, not be the beginings of the new downward trend (as predicted by the sunspot brigade), but infact simply be a mathmatical error.

Unforunately, in saying this they admitted that their reliable variance was larger than the hockey stick curve. The same is equally mathematically true of their entire data set.

I don't see what's wrong with the model if the recorded data lied withing the expected variance. I don't quite understand what you mean in the second paragraph... (please explain )

Quote[/b] ]Maybe, the man made warming theorists are right and this is a blip. Maybe the Sunspot theorists are right and this is an expected downturn.

Both theories do not contradict with each other. In fact, it is accepted that sunspots do influence temperature on Earth. What recent studies say is that that is not the only factor.

Take a look at this:

http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

In answer to the "The global warming swindle" documentary (the part about solar sunspots)

Quote[/b] ]Come back when you know more.

That hurt my feelings...

[Wolfrug 0]

Never the less I can't detect any disadvantage when we change to greener energies.

The cost.

It's not the most efficient method of energy production.

Money that is spent there could be spent elsewhere.

This is a kind of unfortunate way to look at things You are aware that without fossil fuels, most of the world would go dark in about an hour or so, and we would never reappear from that darkness (to put it melodramatically)? I don't really mind one way or the other regarding global warming, but ENERGY CONSUMPTION is the key thing here, isn't it ? We're consuming too much, and it'll run out -> we need to consume less, and figure out alternatives.

Unless you want to get into a little conspiracy-theory fight over peak oil and all that fun stuff? Oh god, I don't think -I- want to, but look it up if you don't know what it's all about. But in short, money = energy. And since energy = oil in the world of today, every bit of money used for anything at all is a bit of fossil fuel being burnt - is it so wrong to want to use that money to find alternative energy sources while it's still possible? (in other words, where do YOU think that money should be spent?)

At least, that's the way I see it. And Earth Hour is about raising awareness and saving energy. Nothing wrong with that, you guys...hypocritical as it may seem.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[Baff1 0]

Never the less I can't detect any disadvantage when we change to greener energies.

The cost.

It's not the most efficient method of energy production.

Money that is spent there could be spent elsewhere.

But the costs will be much higher when our natural resources have vanished.

When our natural resources have vanished they won't be more expensive they will be non existant. Not an option.

As they become more and more expensive the harder and harder they become to resource, they will eventually cease to be the most efficient method of energy production.

When another energy source becomes more efficient, everyone will switch to it.

To switch to it before it is more efficient isn't clever.

When it is, and one day it will be, switch. Everyone else will too.

Make hay when the sun shines. Having a cheaper resource and ignoring it in favour of a more expensive one is lunacy.

Carbon Dioxide is clean. You can breathe it. You are breathing it right now.

Like you I'm not sure that nuclear energy qualifies as green, I am sure that like fossil fuels it is a finite resource that will run out and I am sure that it is one of the most expensive means of producing energy.

There are other reasons for wanting nuclear, energy diversity and weapons programs for example.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Climate study most certainly does model year to year variations. A minute ago you posted me a link to the year to year variations over the north pole.

There is no weaseling out of it now those year to year variations no longer support your claims.

Climate models used to try to predict global climate changes do not pretend to model year to year variations. There are many natural factors that have influence on a specific year temperature record (hurricanes, etc). Other factors, on the other hand, have a more long term influence. If you pretend to predict the temperature in 50 years from now, your model will not consider the first type of factors, but only the second. The first type will actually be used to estimate the variance of your model.

On the other hand, I don't see the problem of using year-to-year data in order to infer a long-term model. That's what I would do...

Quote[/b] ]Science attempts to accurately record data. How you attempt to interpret that data is closer to the realms of philosophy than it is to the realm of science.

False. Science is about recording data and interpreting data. The basics is: you go to the lab (or wherever you record your data), record some data, analyze it and try to come out with a model supporting that data. If you get new data that refutes your model, you start thinking of a new model that supports past and new evidence.

Quote[/b] ]Climate study doesn't model long term variations with any degree of accuracy.

It is a new science. The data set is too small.

Data about temperature has been recorded long before this "new science" emerged. Models do take into account the amount of data they have, and thus estimate the appropriate variance.

Quote[/b] ]The recent period of cooling was dismissed by global warming theorists as statistically within their variance. It could, they say, not be the beginings of the new downward trend (as predicted by the sunspot brigade), but infact simply be a mathmatical error.

Unforunately, in saying this they admitted that their reliable variance was larger than the hockey stick curve. The same is equally mathematically true of their entire data set.

I don't see what's wrong with the model if the recorded data lied withing the expected variance. I don't quite understand what you mean in the second paragraph... (please explain )

Quote[/b] ]Maybe, the man made warming theorists are right and this is a blip. Maybe the Sunspot theorists are right and this is an expected downturn.

Both theories do not contradict with each other. In fact, it is accepted that sunspots do influence temperature on Earth. What recent studies say is that that is not the only factor.

Take a look at this:

http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

In answer to the "The global warming swindle" documentary (the part about solar sunspots)

Quote[/b] ]Come back when you know more.

That hurt my feelings...

It was OK by you when you submitted a year by year climate change model as evidence supporting Global Warming. Why is it not now OK to submit one that does the same for Global Cooling?

Just because you didn't realise that the current year by year model didn't support your opinion?

I'm sorry, but if it was good enough for your argument, it's good enough for mine.

Global temperature is either going up or going down. Currently it is going down.

Any 50 year model you talk of is conjecture. The above is scientific fact.

With regards to the variance, the variance of the hockey graph is at least 0.5 degrees according to NASA.

This means that the figures given, the line drawn, is accurate to within 0.5 degrees.

Which is laughable on a total scale of 1 degree. All their results are within .5 degrees of the median.

My daughter could draw any shaped line she liked and it would be just as precise. I could draw a sin wave or a reverse hockey stick. It makes no difference.

The all would have equal statistcal accuracy for that data set.

They have drawn their graph with a thin line going up and down within a 1 degree margin, when they should have drawn it as a great big one with a 1 degree thickness to accurately represent the data.

The variance is so large because the number of data samples is so low.

While the records included in the graph go back many years, they do not cover the globe and there aren't very many of them.  

In fact 5 different people studied them and all came up with totally different results. It's hardly what you might have called an empiric study.

The hockey graph is a merging of these 5 different opinions. A statisticians interpretation of 5 other satatisticians interpretations of a variety of hopefully accurate records.

Again, it's all great and convincing by me until you ask me to place money it. At that point you need to try harder.

In the last 25 years we have had satelite data and in the last 100 years many more sources of temperature measurement worldwide. Today at the end of the graph, the accuracy of the measurement is far greater.

We can accurately compare the temperature changes of the last 25 years where we cannot before.

I agree that sunspot theory and carbon dioxide theory are not necessarily in conflict with each other.

That a smart man would accept that both play their part to some degree.

Given the rapid cooling in the last ten years in line with sunspot theory prediction, I am afraid that currently I think that Global Warming was 90% sunspot and 10% Carbon.

Yes I think man made CO2 is having an affect, no I don't think it was as dramatic as many were trying to make out 10 years ago.

Now today, as ten years ago we will have a decade long lag for people to catch up with the advances in scientific research.

Where before we had an abundance of Global Warming denialists, we now have Global Cooling denialists.

It is not my intension to hurt your feelings, with statements like "come back when you know more" but merely to labour the point that this is a new science. Early days. If you knew all of it, had read all the research available, you still wouldn't know enough to bet the farm.

This is not an established field. It is experimental science. In it's infancy.

Making bold predictions for the next 50 years has left already left plenty of Global Warming theorists with egg on their faces.

This is a Work In Progress. Our knowledge changes day by day as should our interpretations of it.

In fifty years time, we will look at all the predictions and see which ones were correct. When we find theories with a track record of accuracy, then we can decide which changes need to be made.

Instead of what we have now which is a load of early spunkers all over exited at the idea of an apocalypse.

Don't come too soon.

[Baff1 0]

Never the less I can't detect any disadvantage when we change to greener energies.

The cost.

It's not the most efficient method of energy production.

Money that is spent there could be spent elsewhere.

This is a kind of unfortunate way to look at things    You are aware that without fossil fuels, most of the world would go dark in about an hour or so, and we would never reappear from that darkness (to put it melodramatically)? I don't really mind one way or the other regarding global warming, but ENERGY CONSUMPTION is the key thing here, isn't it ? We're consuming too much, and it'll run out -> we need to consume less, and figure out alternatives.

Unless you want to get into a little conspiracy-theory fight over peak oil and all that fun stuff? Oh god, I don't think -I- want to, but look it up if you don't know what it's all about. But in short, money = energy. And since energy = oil in the world of today, every bit of money used for anything at all is a bit of fossil fuel being burnt - is it so wrong to want to use that money to find alternative energy sources while it's still possible?   (in other words, where do YOU think that money should be spent?)

At least, that's the way I see it. And Earth Hour is about raising awareness and saving energy. Nothing wrong with that, you guys...hypocritical as it may seem.

Regards,

Wolfrug

I think for a lot of the world it is already darkeness.

I think a lot of money in countries like China and India is being spent on fossil fuels to bring light to hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

I think this is right.

You personally may feel you are consuming too much, I do not.

All the energy I consume, all those resources I burn, a little bit of that money ends up in China. Feeding a hungry child. Bring med care to the starving.

As long as I keep consuming the world is a better place.

You may be trying to save lives tomorrow, to avoid the impending apocalypse, but I'm saving lives today. Now.

No sci-fi predicted end of the worlds. Real genuine darkness. Today. Not the imaginary ones you choose to believe in, the actual ones you prefer to ignore.

I don't mind finding alternative fuels sources, I mind using them in preference to cheaper ones.

If cheaper ones exist, not only is no alternative wanted, it is counter productive to use one.

I think a better description would "poor alternative".

Reasearch them? Great!

Adopt them on mass? Stupidity.

When they find a real alternative, everyone will adopt it with out being cajoled.

[Supernova 0]

I'm going to be doing nothing actually. Infact I will crank up my electricity and power consumption and tell my friends and family to do the same. You green hippies/yuppies can do whatever you want and hug a tree.

[ck-claw 1]

I'm going to be doing nothing actually. Infact I will crank up my electricity and power consumption and tell my friends and family to do the same. You green hippies/yuppies can do whatever you want and hug a tree.

Class!

Anyways i live in the UK just south of the Bristol Channel-apparently the 2nd highest tide to the Nile (dont quote me on that)

For yrs they wanted to build a barrage across it to harvest energy as the tide comes in/out twice a day!

But guess what ppl bitched about it being and eyesore???

I'm also 10 mins from Hinckley Point neuclear power station.

Theres always planning being put through for Wind turbines on the surrounding hills!

These are all good ideas for renewable power sources but guess what?

They all get turned down by (as Universal puts it ) tree huggers cause of the 'Blot on the landscape'

[Spetz 0]

I always wondered can't they neutralize emissions from factories by planting trees? don't trees soak up the CO2 from the air? So just make a law for each ton of CO2 you produce you have to plant a tree somewhere in the world, this would be more cost effective because it costs $8 for a 1 ton carbon offset, while a seed fro a tree costs like 5 cents.

[someboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]It was OK by you when you submitted a year by year climate change model as evidence supporting Global Warming. Why is it not now OK to submit one that does the same for Global Cooling?

Just because you didn't realise that the current year by year model didn't support your opinion?

I'm sorry, but if it was good enough for your argument, it's good enough for mine.

A couple comments on this part:

1) You have been mentioning this “global cooling†theory, although have not contributed with any reference explaining what is it. Seriously, give me a reference so I can check it.

2) You, as I understood, were basing your theory on last year’s value of temperature. What I am trying to explain to you is that a single value can never give you a long-term model that sustains a minimum degree of confidence. Global warming theory is backed by temperature records of last decades (primarily), which do allow inferring a somewhat “good†model. Please correct me in case I understood you wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Global temperature is either going up or going down. Currently it is going down.

Any 50 year model you talk of is conjecture. The above is scientific fact.

Ok… let’s see. I looked for records of temperature anomalies from NASA. This is the most recent record I found

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

I am unsure if by “currently temperatures are going down†you mean the measurement for 2008. Yes, it is the coolest year since 2000, but it is also the 7th to 10th warmest year in the complete record (you can read this on the same NASA web). Furthermore, the report claims that this phenomenon must be primarily attributed to “La Niñaâ€.

Quote[/b] ]With regards to the variance, the variance of the hockey graph is at least 0.5 degrees according to NASA.

This means that the figures given, the line drawn, is accurate to within 0.5 degrees.

Which is laughable on a total scale of 1 degree. All their results are within .5 degrees of the median.

My daughter could draw any shaped line she liked and it would be just as precise. I could draw a sin wave or a reverse hockey stick. It makes no difference.

The all would have equal statistcal accuracy for that data set.

They have drawn their graph with a thin line going up and down within a 1 degree margin, when they should have drawn it as a great big one with a 1 degree thickness to accurately represent the data.

I am not sure here if by NASA’s hockey graph you mean temperature record or a model inferred by NASA from temperature records. By the rest of your comments it seems you mean a model. I tried to find this model from the NASA, but could find nothing. Could you please point me to it?

Furthermore, I am afraid you have confused some concepts regarding statistical analysis and statistical regression. Statistical regression techniques are used to infer models from sample data (in our case, temperature). As the data comes with noise, it is impossible to come up with a model that perfectly fits the data. What you basically do is calculate the model that “best†explains the data. That is, you minimize some kind of error measurement (you usually take the sum of the square differences). In this case, the models that tell us that there is an ongoing global warming are the ones that best explain past data (not anyone’s opinion, but math).

Quote[/b] ]While the records included in the graph go back many years, they do not cover the globe and there aren't very many of them.

There are quite a few meteorological stations around the globe . While obviously not all points on Earth can be covered, care is taken into accurately (to the best possible) estimating the remaining points. They do not make up those values; they use well proven models to estimate them.

Quote[/b] ]In fact 5 different people studied them and all came up with totally different results. It's hardly what you might have called an empiric study.

The hockey graph is a merging of these 5 different opinions. A statisticians interpretation of 5 other satatisticians interpretations of a variety of hopefully accurate records.

I would like to read references on this as well.

Quote[/b] ]In the last 25 years we have had satelite data and in the last 100 years many more sources of temperature measurement worldwide. Today at the end of the graph, the accuracy of the measurement is far greater.

We can accurately compare the temperature changes of the last 25 years where we cannot before.

And before satellites we had thermometers…

Quote[/b] ]I agree that sunspot theory and carbon dioxide theory are not necessarily in conflict with each other.

That a smart man would accept that both play their part to some degree.

Given the rapid cooling in the last ten years in line with sunspot theory prediction, I am afraid that currently I think that Global Warming was 90% sunspot and 10% Carbon.

I would love to see the math that allowed you to reach those values… Furthermore… how did you come up with that “rapid cooling†you mention? The graph above does not suggest that. Please, point me to the data you are using.

Quote[/b] ]It is not my intension to hurt your feelings, with statements like "come back when you know more" but merely to labour the point that this is a new science. Early days. If you knew all of it, had read all the research available, you still wouldn't know enough to bet the farm.

This is not an established field. It is experimental science. In it's infancy.

Making bold predictions for the next 50 years has left already left plenty of Global Warming theorists with egg on their faces.

Don’t worry, I was being sarcastic regarding the feelings, I can take it . Regarding the “new science†you mention... well, this is not new science. It is called climatology, and it is many many years old. They are not using “new knowledgeâ€. They are applying their well-established knowledge to infer new models that can explain the data from the last 20 years.

All in all, at some points you seem to critizice the data itself (by saying that the data is not enough and is not accurate), but at other points you seem to deny global warming with an opposite theory (global cooling) which is based on... what data? If it is the same data, then you are under a contradiction, and if it is different data, please reference it.

Regards.

[bravo 6 0]

Do you think by doing this will change anything at all?

You are wrong!

The worst tread to the high temperatures these days are not us Humans, for you to know its the active vulcanos that release so much CO2 into the atmosphere that you can't imagine, its the main reason that overheat the planet.

Also if stupid people stop testing Atom bombs might help alittle bit.

So don't give me this crap "Earth Hour 2009"!

Now you should ask, is there a way to stop Volcanoes?

In my opinion, there isn't.. meaning that in some "t. years" the human race and all entire life in the world is doomed, ie, everything will be extinguished.

Yes all life forms, including plants, the most resistance bugs will be extinguish and it will start all over again, like a cycle. This will happen when the new super continents start to form, and there is no way to stop it from happening too.

Some pictures for those who does not understand the reasons:

Pictures - Recent Volcanic Activity

edit: "

A simple Google search will turn up dozens of results and papers showing that humans generate 150 times as much Co2 as volcanoes."

Also if you simple Google search for Jesus or God you also get some strange words. God my ass!  

[someboy 0]

Yeah I had heard that "Volcano theory" a few times . It turns out that the data is completely made up. There is no single study backing those results, rather the opposite.

I guess some people already made their mind on this matter, and will do whatever is needed to stay like that...

I hope that the climate warming does not end up being true, however current data says it is. Not worrying about it is in my opinion a childish behaviour (but everyone is free to have an opinion).

Regards.

PS: nice volcano pictures