Global Warming Test
 

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/Gl...est/start.html

7/10.

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:

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:

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: )

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).

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.


Where to start!
Well, firstly the effects of Urban Heat Islands on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements]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.

I really dont want to get involved with sides. :nope:

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

:sunny:

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.

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

case closed :shifty:

:rotfl:

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

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..................

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.