Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Right.
So, how does correlation relate to causation??
Oh yeah.....It doesn't.
It doesn't by itself. What we do is look at other evidence than the chart. For instance:
1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 and green house gasses absorb certain bandwidths of infra-red radiation more than other atmospheric gases
2) it is a fact that we have been producing enough CO2 to significantly increase the atmosphere's CO2 content. We know this based on the known approximate mass of fossil fuels burnt since the industrial revolution, and the basic chemistry that tells us how much CO2 will be released when a fossil fuel is burnt
3) We have observed said CO2 increase
4) We have observed temperature increases
Given that we know CO2 CAN cause the earth to warm, given that we've been emitting gigatons of the stuff over the past hundred fifty years or so, and given that we've observed a rise in temperatures - what other conclusion would you draw? Mere coincidence?
If I took a bucket half filled with water, and started pouring water in it, when it overflowed you'd claim that there's no proof me pouring more water in it caused it to overflow.
Let's suppose that we are filling that bucket. The bucket in this case is the warming produced by GHG's. About 3% of those GHG's are CO2 and about 3% of that CO2 contributed is man made.
We know that in times of warming that the Earth naturally produces more CO2 and we know both that CO2 is actually, right now, being released naturally in greater quantities than at any time in recorded history and that natural warming has always preceeded natural CO2 increases.
We further know that every Ice Age for a million years has started when CO2 was at its peak for that cycle. We know that every interglacial for the same period has started when CO2 was at its low point. Is this also causation in your argument? While there is a correlation, it is in direct conflict with your thesis.
Your bucket doesn't seem to hold water.
It doesn't by itself. What we do is look at other evidence than the chart. For instance:
1) it is a scientific fact that CO2 and green house gasses absorb certain bandwidths of infra-red radiation more than other atmospheric gases
2) it is a fact that we have been producing enough CO2 to significantly increase the atmosphere's CO2 content. We know this based on the known approximate mass of fossil fuels burnt since the industrial revolution, and the basic chemistry that tells us how much CO2 will be released when a fossil fuel is burnt
3) We have observed said CO2 increase
4) We have observed temperature increases
Given that we know CO2 CAN cause the earth to warm, given that we've been emitting gigatons of the stuff over the past hundred fifty years or so, and given that we've observed a rise in temperatures - what other conclusion would you draw? Mere coincidence?
If I took a bucket half filled with water, and started pouring water in it, when it overflowed you'd claim that there's no proof me pouring more water in it caused it to overflow.
Let's suppose that we are filling that bucket. The bucket in this case is the warming produced by GHG's. About 3% of those GHG's are CO2 and about 3% of that CO2 contributed is man made.
We know that in times of warming that the Earth naturally produces more CO2 and we know both that CO2 is actually, right now, being released naturally in greater quantities than at any time in recorded history and that natural warming has always preceeded natural CO2 increases.
We further know that every Ice Age for a million years has started when CO2 was at its peak for that cycle. We know that every interglacial for the same period has started when CO2 was at its low point. Is this also causation in your argument? While there is a correlation, it is in direct conflict with your thesis.
Your bucket doesn't seem to hold water.
Pretty lame argument.
We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. The effect of this increase in CO2 has been calculated by the scientists at MIT. They are saying that it will raise the temperature of the earth 5-9 degrees.
But what do they know compared to your vast knowledge!
No, the Antarctic is not cooling.
Access : Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year : Nature
Nature 457, 459-462 (22 January 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07669; Received 14 January 2008; Accepted 1 December 2008
Eric J. Steig
David P. Schneider
Scott D. Rutherford
Michael E. Mann
Josefino C. Comiso
Drew T. Shindell
more authors of this article
Eric J. Steig1, David P. Schneider2, Scott D. Rutherford3, Michael E. Mann4, Josefino C. Comiso5 & Drew T. Shindell6
Department of Earth and Space Sciences and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA
Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA
Department of Meteorology, and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
NASA Laboratory for Hydrospheric and Biospheric Sciences, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, New York 10025, USA
Correspondence to: Eric J. Steig1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to E.J.S. (Email: [email protected]).
Top of pageAbstractAssessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.
Steig????
Are you aware of his drop in standing in the academic community with that cooked data of his?
NO, you would not be aware of that because you have no connection to academia.
Steig is a fraud and is scrambling to retain his position at the UW - even his fellow enviros are unhappy with his sham of a report.
And shame on you - you persist in repeating his lie despite having been told of it before.
I expect more from you - stop dissapointing...
No, the Antarctic is not cooling.
Access : Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year : Nature
Nature 457, 459-462 (22 January 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07669; Received 14 January 2008; Accepted 1 December 2008
Eric J. Steig
David P. Schneider
Scott D. Rutherford
Michael E. Mann
Josefino C. Comiso
Drew T. Shindell
more authors of this article
Eric J. Steig1, David P. Schneider2, Scott D. Rutherford3, Michael E. Mann4, Josefino C. Comiso5 & Drew T. Shindell6
Department of Earth and Space Sciences and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA
Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA
Department of Meteorology, and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
NASA Laboratory for Hydrospheric and Biospheric Sciences, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, New York 10025, USA
Correspondence to: Eric J. Steig1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to E.J.S. (Email: [email protected]).
Top of pageAbstractAssessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.
Steig????
Are you aware of his drop in standing in the academic community with that cooked data of his?
NO, you would not be aware of that because you have no connection to academia.
Steig is a fraud and is scrambling to retain his position at the UW - even his fellow enviros are unhappy with his sham of a report.
And shame on you - you persist in repeating his lie despite having been told of it before.
I expect more from you - stop dissapointing...
Are you aware that you are posting lies? Of course you are.
And politics have nothing to do with one being able to get a PhD?
Not in my experience. I've been in a PhD program for 5 years now and we've had both a Democratic and a Republican governor in this state in that time - when the Republican took over my advisor must not have gotten the memo to call me into his office and direct me to make different conclusion.
I am talking about within the program, not who the fucking governor is.
He never said he was against science, dipshit.
Right - he just thinks its all made up. He's no against it, he just thinks its a bunch of people making shit up. I get it.
In what sense?
If you don't believe that, you must not really be in a Phd program.
I believe its you are the one who is not in a PhD program.
Scientists in Germany did research claiming the Aryan race was superior to all others and that Jews were demonic.
I'm pointing out that if the PhD thesis being handed in to Paul Krugman is on the marvels of Austrian economics, or even the Chicago school, the odds of you getting your PhD are on an extremely low order of probability.
Wrong, numbnuts.I take it in general you are against science, then? So stop typing on your computer. It was created partially based on the research done by government funded scientists.
Or - i think I got it. Any science which comes to conclusions that the DUDE doesnt like is overly influence by politics and wrong - when it comes to conclusions that DUDE likes or results in technology he uses - it must be right!
I'm pointing out that if the PhD thesis being handed in to Paul Krugman is on the marvels of Austrian economics, or even the Chicago school, the odds of you getting your PhD are on an extremely low order of probability.
Perhaps I am the only one in here who has gone through the PhD process (to say nothing of the even more difficult world of tenure) - as well as been on the review side of said process.
There is ENORMOUS pressure to capitulate and simply "give them what they want to hear". While there are conservatives on college campuses, they are a decided minority. Liberalism - at times extreme liberalism, dominates the college campus. That is not to say these are bad people - some of them are close personal friends. They are simply deeply imbedded in the liberal philosophy, and as such, do all they can within their respective field, to protect and advance that philosophy.
Often you will not see a professor openly espouse conservative ideals until some time after gaining tenure - and even then, they go about it carefully. Another interesting offshoot of this transformation, is that these professors will often then gain very large and loyal followings from members of the student body who themselves are yearning to hear a more balanced/conservative approach from those responsible for their studies.
Currently, I would perhaps rate Bob George of Princeton as among the most influential and inspirational conservative minds at the University level. His lectures are consistently outstanding in both content and presentation. And Professor George is not beyond pushing the boundaries - a bit of a shock and awe approach to instructing if you will.
Sadly, his example is the too few exception to the rule of the overtly liberal American college campus...
And yet, as impossible as this might be to accept, the Global Temperature continues to fall.
Yes, to these people ll of the hottest years on record in the last 13 years equals a cooling trend. Total freakin' idiots.
Right - he just thinks its all made up. He's no against it, he just thinks its a bunch of people making shit up. I get it.
In what sense?
I believe its you are the one who is not in a PhD program.
Scientists in Germany did research claiming the Aryan race was superior to all others and that Jews were demonic.
Really? Was there research validated by similar research conducted in other nations by countless other scientists? Did a massive group of thousands of scientists from around the world all get together and decide to publish it?
What peer reviewed scientific literature did they post their research in? Were those peers only German - or were they a cross section of the world at large?
Scientists in Germany did research claiming the Aryan race was superior to all others and that Jews were demonic.
Really? Was there research validated by similar research conducted in other nations by countless other scientists? Did a massive group of thousands of scientists from around the world all get together and decide to publish it?
What peer reviewed scientific literature did they post their research in? Were those peers only German - or were they a cross section of the world at large?
Yes it was validated by scientists in the United States long before Hitler. They "proved" that whites were superior to all other races because of the size of their craniums.
Really? Was there research validated by similar research conducted in other nations by countless other scientists? Did a massive group of thousands of scientists from around the world all get together and decide to publish it?
What peer reviewed scientific literature did they post their research in? Were those peers only German - or were they a cross section of the world at large?
Yes it was validated by scientists in the United States long before Hitler. They "proved" that whites were superior to all other races because of the size of their craniums.
Sure, dingbat, sure. And we are just supposed accept that kind of blithering nonsense because you say so?
