Global Warming Test

[waste gate]

How much do you know about global warming? Be sure to read the explanation for each correct answer.
PS There are no toilet paper questions.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

[The Avon Lady]

7/10.

[UglyMowgli]

totally BS and wrong.
I stop at Question 3 and it is supposed to be 'scientific':damn:

[The Avon Lady]

totally BS and wrong.
I stop at Question 3 and it is supposed to be 'scientific':damn:
Could you explain why so that us ignoramuses can wise up? :know:

[Umfuld]

Unless I miss my guess that test was created by Exxon Mobil. It's makes you kind of sick to think there are people living on this planet whose agenda it is to promote pollution.

[The Avon Lady]

Unless I miss my guess that test was created by Exxon Mobil. It's makes you kind of sick to think there are people living on this planet whose agenda it is to promote pollution.
Can you, too, explain what the errors are in the test's answers? :hmm:

[Camaero]

That is actually one of the few scientific quizzes on global warming. Thanks for posting. I am quite tired of the political scare bs. Those of you who gave up are very ignorant. What is presented here are actually the proven facts of global warming. Sorry to disappoint you Al Gore fans.

(I am sure some of you are about to quote what I said and give your own little speech but save it, I don't care.:cool: )

[UglyMowgli]

totally BS and wrong.
I stop at Question 3 and it is supposed to be 'scientific':damn: Could you explain why so that us ignoramuses can wise up? :know:
just some remarks:

There is a mxing between the natural and anthropic greenhouse effects roles, the water vapor is responsible for 55% of the natural greenhouse but only 1% for the human part, on the other hand, the CO2 is responsible of 55% of the human part of the greenhouse effect, methane 15%, ....

the 11years sunspot variability is not an element of the 'climate change', the % of the energy receive by the earth (the oceans) is just to low to modify the climate and the main effect on the earth (very small temp rasiing) is balanced by the fact that there is more high altitude clouds (bigger albedo) so the solar energy do not reach the earth,it is what we call retroaction loop, (I am currently writing a paper about this).

About the tectonic, a recent meeting a the French Science Academy between scientists arguing the tectonic play a role in the glonbal warming and 'real' climatologits was awfull for the tectonician (headed by the former education ministry Claude Allègre), all their theory were smashed by the leader of the climatoglist (Herve Le Treut my boss).

[Letum]

[Can you, too, explain what the errors are in the test's answers? :hmm:
I'll have a go! ;)


*edit*

ARRRGH! My spell checker messed up and I lost most of my post. I will post again wlater today with the rest of the questions/answers. Too pissed off right now, it took bloody ages.


Orbiting satellites provide the most accurate global temperature readings-- accurate to 0.1 degree C. Interestingly, in the 18 years that satellites have been recording temperature they have actually showed a slight decrease in average global temperatures.

Ground-based thermometers that were originally in rural areas have been reading increasingly hotter temperatures with time due to urban encroachment. The asphalt and concrete structures replacing green leafy plants makes for hotter local ground temperatures. This phenomena is known as the "urban heat-island effect" and has been well-documented by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia.

In a November 1997 press release Vice President Gore proclaimed that 1997 was the hottest year on record. Ground-based temperature readings were the basis for this announcement. Had the data from orbiting satellites been cited the report would have been much different: no net increase in global temperatures in 1997.
Where to start!
Well, firstly the effects of Urban Heat Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island) on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements (http://%5BURL=%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements%22)]satalite temperature readings[/url] have been well studied and have been found to have little impact of satellite heat readings. The little effect they do have is taken into account when the results are processed.
This, however, is academic when compared to the more major problems of satellite temperature readings. Satellites measure the Earth's temperature in a totally different way to ground based thermometers. The satellites take a reading of thermal emissions that are averaged out from the ground to the outer stratosphere. We know that much of the stratosphere has been rapidly cooling and is expected to continue to do so due to o-zone depletion, this gives a bias to satellite readings which is extremely difficult to account for. This is bad news for anyone wishing to look at tropospheric temperature trends (which are close to surface temperature trends anyway!).
Satellites also pick up inaccuracies in their data collection such as orbital drift and cross-calibration of different satellites. Many different answers have been put forward for solving these difficulties, but each produces different results and it is not clear which is right.
In short; the notion that the satellite data is the "most accurate" is at best misleading, at worst completely wrong.


Finally, it says that the satellite data shows a slight cooling, which is completely wrong and, I suspect, based on data which is hopelessly out of date. The latest data for the full period of the satellite record 1979-2005 shows a warming trend somewhat similar to the surface thermometer record, although the exact value differs between the various analyses as I mentioned above.

[The Avon Lady]

About the tectonic, a recent meeting a the French Science Academy between scientists arguing the tectonic play a role in the glonbal warming and 'real' climatologits was awfull for the tectonician (headed by the former education ministry Claude Allègre), all their theory were smashed by the leader of the climatoglist (Herve Le Treut my boss).
I really dont want to get involved (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388) with sides. :nope:

But thanks for the accurate response, thought I haven't got a clue what you said. :doh:

:sunny:

[Skybird]

Some simplifications. Some essential details being left out. Some halfs of the truth not said. Some conclusions from longterm-perspectives being withhold. Suggestive language. Questions being used as triggers only to propagate a predetermined slogan. Some things straightout wrong. Some newer data ignored.

Yes, an objective "scientific" quiz without doubt! No wonder that Exxon is said to spend money on it. It perfectly protects it's core business.

I had started to set up a link per question to established scientific and research institutions as an answer that would kill the agenda of each question one by one, but after three questions the "quiz" became more idiotic than I could bear and thus I decided not to waste my time with this nonsens anymore. You will need to play without me, gentlemen.

[Letum]

Just noticed the website is run by a coal mineing company.......

case closed :shifty:

[stabiz]

:rotfl:

Looking forward to the "How much do you know about gun related deaths?"-quiz by the NRA.

[STEED]

I am a smart ar*e 10/10 :smug: :know:

All you got to do is to take in to account who is posting the questions and Bobs your uncle. ;) :yep:

Hello uncle Bob

Hello STEED

And so on..................

[fatty]

Besides the dubious use of "PC" on the front page (sadly becoming a yellow flag in itself these days) and the fact that the site's authors are employed by the WV coal industry, this was a cute little quiz. 9/10.

[Heibges]

I think it paraphrases Aaron Eckhart's character in "Thank You for Smoking". :)

[Safe-Keeper]

Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.:rotfl:

Thank you, waste gate. It's 1:29, I have a written Norwegian book language exam tomorrow, needed a laugh.

People, before you leave, make sure you also stop by for the Pope's interesting quiz about condoms! Totally objective and based on sound science:p!

Looking forward to the "How much do you know about gun related deaths?"-quiz by the NRA.:rotfl:No, no, take my NorOps quiz first. With questions such as 'which mod leader become Mr. Scandinavia in 2004, 2005, and 2006', it's incredibly enlightening and should give you a far better picture of me, my mod, and this forum.

I stop at Question 3 and it is supposed to be 'scientific':damn:I didn't make it past the explanation for question 1 - the old, refuted argument that since there's a natural process, everything's fine.

Which of course it isn't when the warming is far faster than the natural one.

It also makes some non sequituir statements, such as 'industry didn't cause global warming in the Middle Ages, so it hasn't caused it this time, either'. It's like a suspected robber going, 'we didn't rob that other bank, so why do you accuse us of robbing this one?'.

[Camaero]

I think it paraphrases Aaron Eckhart's character in "Thank You for Smoking". :)
:lol:

[hoagiedriver]

9 out of 10!

Damn orbiting satellites!

[hoagiedriver]

totally BS and wrong.
I stop at Question 3 and it is supposed to be 'scientific':damn:
Actually, the science of the thing is accurate, although perhaps missleading

[Letum]

totally BS and wrong.
I stop at Question 3 and it is supposed to be 'scientific':damn: Actually, the science of the thing is accurate, although perhaps missleading

Well, sevral of the questions are both inaccurate and misleading. I highlight Q.10, but there are others. (7, 4 and 6 for starters)

[waste gate]

What is an inaccurate question????????????
Questions are niether accurate nor inaccurate they are merely inquiries.
'Misleading' to those who aren't willing to think before answering.

[Letum]

What is an inaccurate question????????????
Questions are niether accurate nor inaccurate they are merely inquiries.
'Misleading' to those who aren't willing to think before answering.
By "question" I meant both the question and/or the answers given by the site.

By "misleading" I mean the questions (and/or answers) lead to conclusions that would not normally be made if one had a wider knowledge of the subject than the knowledge contained in the question (and/or answers).

For a nice example of inaccurate see: My Previous Post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=522822&postcount=9)

[waste gate]

What is an inaccurate question????????????
Questions are niether accurate nor inaccurate they are merely inquiries.
'Misleading' to those who aren't willing to think before answering.
By "question" I meant both the question and/or the answers given by the site.

By "misleading" I mean the questions (and/or answers) lead to conclusions that would not normally be made if one had a wider knowledge of the subject than the knowledge contained in the question (and/or answers).

For a nice example of inaccurate see: My Previous Post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=522822&postcount=9)


That is a very unusual arguement. Questions aren't questions. Questions are also the answer? My experience is that the question is the interrogatory and the answer is the response to that interrogarory.

Questions do not and often will not encompass every possible answer which may or may not be given. Have a seat in a legitimate court and observe how fact is established. One question and one answer at a time, at a time.

Are you saying the questions were not complicated enough? It has been my experience that simple questions engender simple answers. The quiz I posted had multiple answers. It was certainly not unfair, in that only one answer was possible, a person's only reqiurement was to use their knowledge and common sense.

[TheSatyr]

I'd like to hear Gore and his acolytes explain why there is global warming on Mars...and why that is being basically ignored by the media...kind of kills Gore's "It's all the fault of Humans" mantra that he is trying to push off on the various Governments and the people.

If there is global warming on both Earth and Mars than it stands to reason that the Sun is probably causing the problem...since last time I checked we don't have any heavy industrial factories on Mars.

And then you have meteorologists saying that from the data aquired from tree rings,the earth's temperature has always fluctuated and that what's happening isn't that unusual.

And you have some astronomers who do think the Sun has been burning hotter than usual lately.

I can't help thinking that Gore and his followers are just using the global warming thing to get their radical green agenda passed around the world. (Radical may be too mild a word.). What will they do if all they want gets passed and it does nothing to stop temperatures from going up?

I once read a quote from a meterologist that went something like this. "Climatologists are just people who couldn't hold down a real job"

What disturbs me the most is how Gore and his followers keep saying there is no longer any debate about the cause of global warming,when many people say he's wrong. The reason there is no debate is because the global warming types mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. They seem to be afraid of a real debate.

Is the weather weirder than usual?...of course it is. Is there global warming? I personally think there is. But I believe the cause of it is still open for debate.

[Tchocky]

I'd like to hear Gore and his acolytes explain why there is global warming on Mars...and why that is being basically ignored by the media...kind of kills Gore's "It's all the fault of Humans" mantra that he is trying to push off on the various Governments and the people.

If there is global warming on both Earth and Mars than it stands to reason that the Sun is probably causing the problem...since last time I checked we don't have any heavy industrial factories on Mars. Mars is a totally different planet. With a much thinner atmosphere. Further away from the Sun. Are actually suggesting that climate change on Earth isnt human-caused because Mars is getting hotter? Park a carbon copy of Earth in a similiar orbit, then we'll see. Don't compare Earth with Mars. I'm sure you're not a planetary climatologist.

And then you have meteorologists saying that from the data aquired from tree rings,the earth's temperature has always fluctuated and that what's happening isn't that unusual. Fluctuated, yes it always has. But never this fast. That's cause for alarm in my book. (but again, I'm no scientist)

And you have some astronomers who do think the Sun has been burning hotter than usual lately. And the flat earth society is still kicking.

I can't help thinking that Gore and his followers are just using the global warming thing to get their radical green agenda passed around the world. (Radical may be too mild a word.). What will they do if all they want gets passed and it does nothing to stop temperatures from going up? Whyever would they want to push a "radical green agenda" if not to combat climate change? Radical actually is too mild a word. Bandages, not operations.

What disturbs me the most is how Gore and his followers keep saying there is no longer any debate about the cause of global warming,when many people say he's wrong. The reason there is no debate is because the global warming types mock and ridicule anyone who disagrees with them. They seem to be afraid of a real debate. Politicians and average citizens can't debate climate change, because on the whole we don't have the skills. The scientific community, the people that do have the knowledge, generally agree that climate change is a problem and that it's most likely our fault.
No-one likes this situation, because they can't see it or understand it. Hence messengers are getting shot left right and centre.

Is the weather weirder than usual?...of course it is. Is there global warming? I personally think there is. But I believe the cause of it is still open for debate.And that's your personal opinion. The professional opinions of many, many scientists stand contrary.

[August]

Don't compare Earth with Mars. I'm sure you're not a planetary climatologist.

Neither are you so your rejection of his belief carries about as much weight as the belief itself. At least he has a reference for the theory, your rejection does not.

That's cause for alarm in my book. (but again, I'm no scientist)

You don't have a "book". You're not a scientist remember?

And the flat earth society is still kicking.

Are you back to being a scientist already? How do you know the sun isn't heating up?

Whyever would they want to push a "radical green agenda" if not to combat climate change? Radical actually is too mild a word. Bandages, not operations.

Why does any agenda get pushed? Money and power. Al Gore using enough electricity in his mansion to power a whole neighborhood and excusing it by buying carbon credits from companies that he owns is a prime example of it. Where was Al Gores political career before becoming a global warming crusader?

Politicians and average citizens can't debate climate change, because on the whole we don't have the skills. The scientific community, the people that do have the knowledge, generally agree that climate change is a problem and that it's most likely our fault.
No-one likes this situation, because they can't see it or understand it. Hence messengers are getting shot left right and centre.

That doesn't stop you from debating it so why tell him he can't? Besides "generally" and "most likely" are qualifiers that do not indicate a consensus.

And that's your personal opinion. The professional opinions of many, many scientists stand contrary.

There are just as many that contradict them as well. Oh but that's right, everyone who doesn't jump on the 100% human caused global warming bandwagon is either stupid or in the pay of the ebil oil companies, right?

[Tchocky]

Don't compare Earth with Mars. I'm sure you're not a planetary climatologist. Neither are you so your rejection of his belief carries about as much weight as the belief itself. At least he has a reference for the theory, your rejection does not.If there was a reference I would have responded. "If there is global warming on Earth & Mars" isnt really a reference. maybe a link or quote from an authority would suffice.
Anyway, I think it's pretty disingenuous to compare the two and base a very important decision on it. Of course, I dont know enough about the atmospheres of either of the two planets to make an informed decision. The way I see it, you don't need to be a genius to see that they are very different, but it takes a lot of smarts and resarch to see the climatic similiarities.
That's cause for alarm in my book. (but again, I'm no scientist)You don't have a "book". You're not a scientist remember? Semantics. Okay then. Earth is warming faster than ever (http://southbaymobilization.org/newsroom/earth/howarticles/03.1218.EarthWarmingAtFasterPaceAndHumanCaused.htm ). I dont need an M.Sc. to see that.

Whyever would they want to push a "radical green agenda" if not to combat climate change? Radical actually is too mild a word. Bandages, not operations. Why does any agenda get pushed? Money and power. Al Gore using enough electricity in his mansion to power a whole neighborhood and excusing it by buying carbon credits from companies that he owns is a prime example of it. Where was Al Gores political career before becoming a global warming crusader? President of the United States, but lets not get into that.

Money and power, you serious? There are easier ways to get both of those than telling people they're killing the planet and limiting toilet flushes.
I'll consider shady motives when they make sense.

I mean, money and power from tellling people not to use oil and gas? The two major hydrocarbons that are running out and rocketing in price? There's wind and sunlight everywhere, yet the world s most powerful military is camped on top of oil. Money and power....

Politicians and average citizens can't debate climate change, because on the whole we don't have the skills. The scientific community, the people that do have the knowledge, generally agree that climate change is a problem and that it's most likely our fault.
No-one likes this situation, because they can't see it or understand it. Hence messengers are getting shot left right and centre.That doesn't stop you from debating it so why tell him he can't? Besides "generally" and "most likely" are qualifiers that do not indicate a consensus. Certainty is pretty dumb. It's why you get numbers like 90% from the IPCC. That was the certainty level they gave for human cause.
Didnt mean to say he cant debate it, but many people just declare their ideas without realising how little they know. It's kind of like Astrophysics. You get someone coming along and saying "I reject the Big Bang!". Just like that. It takes years of complicated mathematics to even begin to understand the question that "the Big Bang" is an answer to, yet someone with a couple of memorised psalms knocks it off the table.
Of course, anyone can argue this stuff, it's the unfounded blanket statements I don't like. Feel free to pick any such statements out of my posts, or go back to my publishing record.
And that's your personal opinion. The professional opinions of many, many scientists stand contrary.
There are just as many that contradict them as well. Oh but that's right, everyone who doesn't jump on the 100% human caused global warming bandwagon is either stupid or in the pay of the ebil oil companies, right?[/quote] That's right. I'm Jesus don't you know.

Many many scientists (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html)

[Lagger123987]

I suck at this test what is global warning anyway?

[Tchocky]

Here's an article on Mars, for anyone interested.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

It deals with how different Mars' climate is from our own.

[August]

Here's an article on similar global warming events on the other planets in the solar system.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

On Pluto
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html


On Jupiter
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

On Neptunes largest moon Triton
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

[Tchocky]

Here's an article on similar global warming events on the other planets in the solar system.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

On Pluto
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html


On Jupiter
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

On Neptunes largest moon Triton
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
Wow, we've been here before :)

What I said last time -

Warming on Triton, or Pluto, or Jupiter doesnt affect the argument on Earth so much. I'm no astronomer, nor am I a climatologist, but we've only been observing Pluto for what equates to three months of it's annual weather cycle. Planets/asteroids/moons differ. Jupiter is a gas giant that sends out twice as much heat as it receives from the sun, Pluto's year lasts 248 Earth years.
There's a phrase that involves apples and oranges which I might use.

[Letum]

Here's an article on similar global warming events on the other planets in the solar system.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

On Pluto
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html


On Jupiter
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

On Neptunes largest moon Triton
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
Wow, we've been here before :)

What I said last time -

Warming on Triton, or Pluto, or Jupiter doesnt affect the argument on Earth so much. I'm no astronomer, nor am I a climatologist, but we've only been observing Pluto for what equates to three months of it's annual weather cycle. Planets/asteroids/moons differ. Jupiter is a gas giant that sends out twice as much heat as it receives from the sun, Pluto's year lasts 248 Earth years.
There's a phrase that involves apples and oranges which I might use.

I love prespective.

[bradclark1]

Instead of having to be either black or white what about gray? A little black and a little white makes gray and you can also get varying shades.

[waste gate]

I see where there is a push to make the so called global warming a national security issue for the US. I'm of the opinion that the more politicized the debate becomes the better it will be for me. Also by making so called global warming a national security issue it will give the US more reason not to adopt Kyoto or any other idea which will put the US economy at risk.