It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
"Could". So then they / we really don't know?
That's troubling, because I wasn't aware that the sun itself is / can be responisbile for variations in local conditions?
"Seem to have". Good language once again. If you dig thru to the discussions beyond your blogger link you'll see that they'r estill not finished, and that, as you always say, there can be explanations -related to geography etc- in their initial incomplete assessment.
I may have missed it, but were those graphs plotted off the 33% checked-stations? It was only about 27% a couple weeks ago.
Anyways, can you explain this one to me, from the same plotter:
Finally, the plot below shows the 20yr trailing trend in degC/decade for CRN12, CRN5, and GISS.
What is a "20 year trailing trend"? I've yet to see that terminology.
What? Where is there really much of any "frauditor BS" in there? The only link was to them showing some major flaws with some of the Russian station data.
It's just too bad that the trend you speak of applies mostly to the pre-satellite days, eh?
None of your conjecture really damages the fact of the human population explosion and etc arguments I provided, I am afraid.
That wouldn't happen to be when humans finally got some temp satellites up there would it? Maybe they've been driving the heat? Relaity is based on perception, after all.
I'd really like to hear them. It wouldn't seem like aerosols would have gone down too much since the 70's...
So then, the CO2 THREAT arguments might not be all that absolute, afterall?
You need to go beyond binary thinking.
I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. Now you're using my terminology, as if I'm the one consistently arguing in pro-AGW absolutes, when my only intention is to show how flawed the arguments are, and how little we mighty-arrogent humans really know.
Sorry,
But going by that graph above that I'd guess you'd accept, how on earth were the temps higher before -similar to today- while the CO2 apparently wasn't up there whatsoever?
That's the attitude. Listen to Al Gore for Christ's sake.
That's good to hear, because the propaganda machine out there that has GWB's & the Neocons war drumbeat parrot army almost envious.
"Environmentalism" is being unwittingly used as a pawn of the same imperialist Establishment that initially wrecked those regions and have kept them so in the past 50+ years.
Originally posted by StellarX
If anything invalidates CO2 prevalence as resulting from human activity this does...
Originally posted by melatonin
Do you think that the fact we are releasing twice the CO2 each year required to account for the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 can be ignored?
That all this CO2 just disappears into a black hole?
Originally posted by StellarX
No i do not and that was a clear case of me wanting to see something that just was not supported by the evidence presented. Sorry for wasting your time, to say nothing of my credibility, with that particular bad example!
Originally posted by edsinger
So will you at least admit that the 'theory' of human caused global warming is just that, a theory?
ED
Originally posted by melatonin
Interestingly enough, from my position your credibility actually went up
It's refreshing to see someone accept an error. Most just ignore them and move on to the next canard. To err is human. Kudos.
Originally posted by melatonin
That's why they call them theories.
But I'm quite sure by the way you frame that question that you fail to understand what a theory in science is. What it isn't is a guess. It is a supported scientific explanation. That is, it is logically consistent explanation that fits the evidence.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.