sounds like you’ve take a critical reasoning course.
But its “if a then b” “b” “therefore a” or wait is that it, damn gotta go find my book. Is that modus pollens of modus tolluns?
No, I’m going in the typical mathmatical formula:
If A = B and B=C then A=C
Jen, that last sentence speaks to thinks like the hurricane 30 year cycle being longer or shorter.
It does not say dick about global warming, except that it expresses the HYPOTHESIS that the sun may change the interval of that phenomenon they are studying.
I personally think the sun is responsible for global warming. But the quote you posted above does NOT say anything about global warming, just about regional weather phenomena and the frequency of cycles of same.
Does this supposed refutation of Global Warming come from a scientific journal or the popular press? The scientists say it is real while the popular media seems to be split. I’ve seen “The Inconvienient Truth.” Don’t ignore the message because you don’t like the messenger.
I particularly enjoyed the information from the Navy who apparently keeps accurate information on the thickness of the Arctic ice for Submarine ops purposes. The steady drop off of that chart was alarming.
I find it funny that one guy study (wich doesn’t bring new facts since we already knew sun radiations varied a lot) is the proof that global warming is a myth, but when we talked about evolution, hundred of studies from hundred scientists were worth almost nothing.
sounds like you’ve take a critical reasoning course.
But its “if a then b” “b” “therefore a” or wait is that it, damn gotta go find my book. Is that modus pollens of modus tolluns?
that argument is not valid. modus ponens would read: if a then b. “a” ttherfore b. affirming the antecedent.
modus tollens is: if a then b. “not b” therefore not a.
im not sure if you were talking to me or jen, but i meant what i said:
if a then b.
b
therefore d
i was making a point that jen was attempting to make an argument but left out a necessary premise to reach the conclusion she did.
But it does directly state:
This Arctic Oscillation, as they called it, changes weather patterns all over the hemisphere, from blizzards in Cleveland, to rainfall in Spain, to the frequency of the Eastern seaboards dreaded Nor-easters. Call it El Nino of the North!
The positive cycles associated with warmer winters, for instance, dominated much of teh 1980s and 1990s.
That indicates it’s much more involved then mearly a hurricane or two.
Warmer winters, more snow, etc…all attributed. Isn’t warmer winters the main point of your global warming theories? Thus yea, he’s pointing to a natural phenomena that has a great and significant impact on the global temperature of this planet.
And that’s from Scientific American, just FYI. Not exactly known for being a biased media outlet.
havent seen it frimm, but does al gore talk about the sun putting out more energy at all? Normal climate change? or is it against people and people are the fault and nothing else, which in my point of view is rediculous because the earth changes itself and adapts. once again earth system science.
Isn’t warmer winters the main point of your global warming theories?
no, warmer climate in general. not just winter, but summer spring and fall. warmer climates which impact global weather patterns, and in the case of such phenomena as hurricanes, increase the frequency and power of such events. all this article does is discuss a particualr phenomena which influences weather patterns. it says nothing for or against global warming.
in fact, since global warming is conspicuosly absent, i think this scientist purposely left out references to it because he knew he had insufficient evidence to support or go against global warming. and the fact that you are now taking his research and bandying it about as being proof that global warming is a myth is an improper use of his research, one im sure he would dissociate himself from. if he thought it was anti-global warming proof, he would have at least mentioned the possibility (being a scientist, he wouldnt have made such a definitive statement as you did either, because he knows this is one piece of information). this isnt really about global warming at all, youve simply misappropriated his findings
HAHA OLver, good point.
I think scientists are split over how much effect humans are having on global warming. i think most agree to the warming trend.
Isn’t warmer winters the main point of your global warming theories?
no, warmer climate in general. not just winter, but summer spring and fall. warmer climates which impact global weather patterns, and in the case of such phenomena as hurricanes, increase the frequency and power of such events. all this article does is discuss a particualr phenomena which influences weather patterns. it says nothing for or against global warming.
But a warmer winter would imply a warmer spring, summer and fall as well. At least to the common man, to whom this artical was written.
Common, you can fight all you want, but eventually you will have to conceed that the evidence discounting human involvement in the global average temperature on thsi planet is negligable at best. And that could even be attributed to all the extra BTUs of energy we exude as living beings running at 96 degrees fahrenheit!
Would you prefer we assassinate/liquidate huge portions of the population to see if it cools off the planet a little? I’m all for it, let’s start with the vegetarians (the last link on the food chain in case of global famine), eco-freaks, ecologists, politicians, lawyers and judges…if we need more, we can go with teachers, cops, doctors (not nurses!), and truckers. :P :evil:
I have to agree with the others there…this was not addressing global warming.
The sun is the source of this planet’s heat, that’s a given. Global warming concerns the matter of how much humans are affecting the heat once it’s here.
If you recall the impact of CFC’s on the ozone, there is now proof that our efforts are correcting the problem. So why would a human affect on global warming be impossible?
Jen, this is talking about a periodic cycle and for a particular region.
Thus warmer in 80-90’s, but cooler in the 60-70’s, warme in 40-50’s, etc.
It is not a GLOBAL issue, but a regional/hemispheric one, and it is periodic, it rises AND falls.
The Global Warming thing relies on a completely different set of alleged data, and deals with temps on a global scale that allegedly are on a steady increase not for a couple of decades, but over a span of 150 years. (please note the alleged in that statement. The Maunder Minimum explains more temp change than Global Warming claims over the past couple of centuries)
I have to agree with the others there…this was not addressing global warming.
The sun is the source of this planet’s heat, that’s a given. Global warming concerns the matter of how much humans are affecting the heat once it’s here.
If you recall the impact of CFC’s on the ozone, there is now proof that our efforts are correcting the problem. So why would a human affect on global warming be impossible?
Let’s not get into CFC’s….that’s pretty much been discounted more then the myth that dragons ruled the skies. :)
Problem is, human beings do not effect our atmosphere anywhere near the level required to raise the average temperature of the planet by even one degree. However, studies like this one show how solar activity, specifically solar flares and radiation storms, do raise and lower our planet’s temperature, effect wind speeds that effect hot and cold times and can cause heat waves and ice ages.
But some people don’t want to hear about that…I think it’s because they view themselves as God and think they can effect what God has made and that makes them feel important…at least it isn’t as scary as conceeding you have no power over the environment as a whole. That’s why studies like this are shrugged off as fringe arguements and not given the same weight as, oh say the hole in the ozone layer that’s been around since the beginning of the planet, evidentally.
Jen,
While I am not a proponent of Global Warming, Humans DO have an impact, a pretty major one.
It is not just SUV’s and factories though. If that were the main source of “greenhouse gasses” or whatever, then yes, it would all be BS.
But other cumulative effects by Humans are also in the mix. For example, killing a lot of oceanic plant life due to clouding the coastal seas with soil errosion or other sediemnts and chemicals has a HUGE impacton convertion of CO2 to O2, since most O2 is created in the ocean not on land. Also the broader impact of the urban Heat Islands has NEVER been studied. It is WELL known and hyper-documented that massive urban areas are much hotter than surrounding rural areas. But what impact do those heat islands have on the upper atmosphere? Global Warming calculations use arbitrarilly adjusted temp figures to remove heat island effect from the global warming calculations (one of Chrichtons main arguments again global warming in State of Fear). But is it valid to just exclude heat island effects? I mean, an increasing amount of land is becoming part of heat islands every day, so don;t you kind of HAVE to take into account the fact that NYC is 8 degrees F warmer than Syracuse, instead of trying to adjust it out before doing calculations (as is done with current global warming models)?
We DO have increased solar output. That is a GIVEN. But we also have these other effects. And ALL effects are cumulative…
Human doesn’t have to affect a lot the Earth to cause big changes. A good example is the methane that is liberated from the “pergélisol” (don’t know the english word, but it designs toudra (most superficy of Russia and Canada is composed of it). A very small raise in the temperature cause the liberation of a lot of methane, wich cause a far bigger raise in the temperature. This is how a human “small” cause can produce a huge effet.
havent seen it frimm, but does al gore talk about the sun putting out more energy at all? Normal climate change? or is it against people and people are the fault and nothing else, which in my point of view is rediculous because the earth changes itself and adapts. once again earth system science.
The contention is primarily that HUMANS (not Republicans, or Democrats, or Muslims, or Communists) are using fossil fuels to the point of changing the amount of heat the Earth retains from the sun. This heat is melting the polar ice and causing more heat to be retained. The ice reflects heat and the ocean tends to retain it. It was not contended that the energy from the sun is more than at any time in the past. The Earth is simply retaining more of it.
Kilamanjaro used to have snow on it. It doesn’t anymore. The number of days per year that trucks can drive on the tundra has halved in the last decade. I already mentioned the areas where the submarines can break thru the polar ice has increased (I would contend that that is a completely unbiased fact.)
The fact that I haven’t made time to look to on my own is that of over 900 scientifice articles (articles written by actual scientists) none dispute global warming as fact. Of over 600 articles in popular media more than half dispute it as fact. Who are you listening too?
I have to agree with the others there…this was not addressing global warming.
The sun is the source of this planet’s heat, that’s a given. Global warming concerns the matter of how much humans are affecting the heat once it’s here.
If you recall the impact of CFC’s on the ozone, there is now proof that our efforts are correcting the problem. So why would a human affect on global warming be impossible?
Let’s not get into CFC’s….that’s pretty much been discounted more then the myth that dragons ruled the skies. :)
Show me. I’ve seen nothing.
Problem is, human beings do not effect our atmosphere anywhere near the level required to raise the average temperature of the planet by even one degree. However, studies like this one show how solar activity, specifically solar flares and radiation storms, do raise and lower our planet’s temperature, effect wind speeds that effect hot and cold times and can cause heat waves and ice ages.
If you figure a butterfly effect with the sun, then why wouldn’t humans have an impact on the earth? It’s possible that BOTH have an effect. But warming is an issue, no matter the cause.
But some people don’t want to hear about that…I think it’s because they view themselves as God and think they can effect what God has made and that makes them feel important…at least it isn’t as scary as conceeding you have no power over the environment as a whole. That’s why studies like this are shrugged off as fringe arguements and not given the same weight as, oh say the hole in the ozone layer that’s been around since the beginning of the planet, evidentally.
No, people are worried because we feel responsible. Those who are denying human involvement are probably too lazy to want to do anything about it. Or perhaps we could ascribe your reasoning of divine origin. Even if humans had a proven no impact on the planet, would you sit around and do nothing? What a joke. You are arguing just to argue.
So put some CFC run air conditioners at the poles and leave us alone. We have climate control technology, use it instead of whining like a 3 year old about some ice melting. Some of us have seen hundreds, maybe even thousands of pages of reports showing that increased solar activity coupled with standard deviations in our orbit cause heat waves and ice ages to occur. We’ve seen similar reports in equal depth and length proving that we could burn every fossil fuel on or in the planet simultaniously and not even effect our climate by a single degree.
Yet I’m to believe my personal aeresol can of hair spray is single handedly killing all the fish in teh ocean and causing the icebergs to melt?
But some people don’t want to hear about that…**I think it’s because they view themselves as God and think they can effect what God has made and that makes them feel important…**at least it isn’t as scary as conceeding you have no power over the environment as a whole.Â
To me, it’s more like you think you’re superior enough to have discovered what were god’s plans (if any)…
Again Jen, prioving your lack of knowledge.
CFC is not a greenhouse gas. Chloroflurocarbons are highly reactive with O3 (Ozone). The problem with CFC’s related to upper atmosphere Ozone, not global warming.
Oh, and have you noticed that, since CFC were banned form aeresols 25 years ago, and since HVAC units have gone away from CFCs, that the Ozone Hole over antarctica has repaired itself?
Now is that coincidence? no idea. But we DID stop tens of millions of people from releasing can after can of CFC’s into the air from their hair spray and deodorant… tens of millions of tons of lighter than air O3 reactive chemicals, and now the Ozone layer has repaired itself.
