Im disgusted.

[Tundrawolf]

I hope it's not the potato I left in the microwave! *runs off madly to check*

I was cooking hot dogs in the microwave last night. Someone said "Only put them in for a minute", yeah right I said.

She was right.

Ah, the power of the magnetron.

[Nate]

[Technomancer]

for Carbon Dioxide to get to such a level that it is actually causing a noticeable change in atmospheric temperature it has to be critical levels where our health is in danger from CD poisoning.

Several studies have been done on climate sensitivity to CO2, and none of them come anywhere near this conclusion. Perhaps you coul cite a source in the primary literature?

Are we screwing some things up? Almost certainly. In An Inconvenient Truth Hal Gore cited snow-melt on Mt. Kiliwilimonjonononjonaro* as proof of temperature increase due to Carbon Dioxide levels

Al Gore has nothing to do with the science of global warming. At best, he is only repeating material he has read up on, he did not originate the idea, nor has he made any contribution to the scientific understanding of the problem. Whether the situation at Mt. Kilimanjaro was reported accurately or not, I can't say, since I haven't seen the film to which you refer. I don't know whether he's bungled the science or whether his critics have bungled an interpretation of an illustrative example. In any event a single data point does not a trend make, and a broader perspective can be had by inquiring into the state of glaciers worldwide.

As for the Hockey Stick, Dr. Mann (the person who originally came up with it) has been notoriously bad for not letting anyone check his results, which is somewhat suspect for me.

No. Please check your sources on this as they are flat-out wrong. Mann's dataset is publicly available in its entirety and his mathematical methods are fully explained in the relevant papers. His results have not only been replicated by interested (and competent) third parties, but independent researchers developing their own reconstructions have obtained the same results.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=172
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-an-old-millennium/#more-253
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

"MAthematics so simple a 5 year old coudl do them".

I don't recall ever actually saying that.

Explain the cololest winter trend-is global warming not really global?

Except you haven't shown any trend. You only posted results for a single winter over the northern hemisphere]
Maybe it is localized? I'm sorry people, but your emotions are affecting your ability to reason. The seemingly most intelectual people in this thread are the ones who are falling for the lies the most
[/quote]

Really? I'm well educated in statistics (an expert in signal processing to be exact), and have a good geoscience background. At no point have I been emotional; I have reached my conclusions by applying my training and by paying close attention to what appears in the scientific literature.

. Funny, only a sarcastic reply was made to refute what I found. Nor was the colling trend addressed, either.

As we have established, you have posted no trend.

[Doubleshadow]

You better, I once had a burrito catch on fire inside the microwave. It was... slightly... overcooked afterwards. More than likely I could have used it as coal in my grill.

That's some microwave you have.

Your prof needs to retake Rhetoric. This argument contains a serious fallacy that renders it illegitimate.

Hahaha!

If only there were some branch of mathematics that would allow us to extract trends out of seemingly random data!

Again: Hahaha!

Al Gore has nothing to do with the science of global warming.

Considering the resources consumption of his Tennessee mansion, he is responsible for a lot more of it than you or I.

The man grossly misrepresented facts about a critical issue for the PR. We went over this in my inorganic class, and the professor specializes in environmental clean up. Basically, Al Gore is a first rate charlatan and total hypocrite whose sales pitches during his talks borderline on illegal.

As for the original topic, corrections to this would be difficult as, for example, China and other parts of the developing world do not care whether or not some of their people die period, let alone from global warming. Beijing's average pollution day is still worse than LA's worse days and some athletes won't come to the Olympics until the last minute to save their lungs. Plus, the Chinese go for cheaper chemicals known to be dangerous for things such as coolants and just don't care. How exactly do we get them to behave?

[mechana2015]

What's also humorous is that in some climate models, warming and melting as described in the OP can actually trigger cooling trends over a period of time.

[Technomancer]

The man grossly misrepresented facts about a critical issue for the PR. We went over this in my inorganic class, and the professor specializes in environmental clean up. Basically, Al Gore is a first rate charlatan and total hypocrite whose sales pitches during his talks borderline on illegal.

Then don't listen to him; I never have. Go to places like these instead:
http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html
http://www.realclimate.org/

For those not in the know, "Nature" is one of the world's premiere scientific journals. "Realclimate" is a well known blog run by several climate scientists(it won an award from SciAm not to long ago). I've found it well researched, and very importantly, heavily referenced.

for example, China and other parts of the developing world do not care whether or not some of their people die period, let alone from global warming.

The Chinese have actually been working pretty hard to clean things up. And believe me, given their long history of famines, many in their government are very concerned about global warming.

[uc pseudonym]

I am very sorry that I have to lock this. We should be able to have this discussion on a reasonable level without it spiraling out of control. In any case, at this point it has become the kind of contention that CAA rules require I close.

I am also sorry that it wouldn't be fair to post something on topic now that I've locked the thread. But I think I can say this as a general statement: it is meaningless to make any assertion on a subject like this while providing no evidence. That means a link to a reputable scientific source (not to a general news article, not to a polemic site, and certainly not to an unqualified individual's blog). That's the only way these discussions are going to move beyond oppositional rhetoric.