NationStates Jolt Archive

I live in Minnesota(ya know the place that is famous for frigid winters and losing football teams) and normally we get several feet of snow by Christmas, with 8 days left, we haven't even had a quarter inch. today it was 50 degrees(F) outside. Care to refute this doubters?

I've noticed that too. Yesterday it was in the 70's in Charlotte, NC. We usually get around 50s around this time of year. Hell my dad took his Shelby Cobra (no top, fair weather car only) out for a ride.

apparently many ski resorts in the alps are suffering cuz they haven't had any snow. many are resorting to using snow machines.

having said that 'global warming' is a misnomer. 'global climate change' is a more appropriate name for what is going on. not everywhere is warming it's just the most noticeable and potentially disasterous effect.

On topic and interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6185345.stm

A mate of mine just got back from Finland, and he said there's no snow there. Apparently first time this has happened since records began.

Is there an El Nino, or El Nina in the Pacific?

Is there an El Nino, or El Nina in the Pacific?

El Nino. And remember, local changes in weather don't necessarily indicate climate change. Long-term trends in weather do.

That is the same exact reason I believe in global warming. You see, I live on Long Island, in New York, and we usually get shafted during the winter, I'm talkin' 20-35 inches of snow... yet, here we are Monday December 17th 2006, and not a SINGLE snow flake has fallen on us this year... and just yesterday it was 65 degrees F... IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER. :eek:

El Nino. And remember, local changes in weather don't necessarily indicate climate change. Long-term trends in weather do.

Maybe El Nino is responsible for the mild winter we're having here?

OK Chicken Little I assure you, the sky isn't falling just because we're having a mild winter.

The entire idea of Global Warming is that the average planetary temperature is climbing incrementally each year, (by a fraction of a degree) such that over the course of several decades the climate would be significantly warmer causing all sorts of changes like melting polar ice caps and so on.

One mild windter has *no* bearing on Global Warming. If you think it's 20 degrees warmer this year than average because of it, then we have about 5 years to live at best so grab your ankles and pucker up.

Or better yet, educate yourself.

OK Chicken Little I assure you, the sky isn't falling just because we're having a mild winter.

The entire idea of Global Warming is that the average planetary temperature is climbing incrementally each year, (by a fraction of a degree) such that over the course of several decades the climate would be significantly warmer causing all sorts of changes like melting polar ice caps and so on.

One mild windter has *no* bearing on Global Warming. If you think it's 20 degrees warmer this year than average because of it, then we have about 5 years to live at best so grab your ankles and pucker up.

Or better yet, educate yourself.

So true. I personally subscribe to the theory that the global climate usually goes through a cycle from warm to cold.

So true. I personally subscribe to the theory that the global climate usually goes through a cycle from warm to cold.

I agree with you.

I had five wanks today. Normally I only have one. It is clear that the halothermal circulation has shut down.

So true. I personally subscribe to the theory that the global climate usually goes through a cycle from warm to cold.

It does. Except now, all of a sudden the temperature is climbing much, much faster than during any natural cycle in the past, and it's in lockstep with increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from industrial processes.

It does. Except now, all of a sudden the temperature is climbing much, much faster than during any natural cycle in the past, and it's in lockstep with increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from industrial processes.

Then why are we seeing an effect now? Why not back when the industrial revolution was starting, or the time when we had the highest pollution levels?

Then why are we seeing an effect now? Why not back when the industrial revolution was starting, or the time when we had the highest pollution levels?

The CO2 levels are the higher right now than at any point in recent human history. And the global temperature has been going up at least since the beginning of the century...which makes sense given that (A) it presumably takes time for the effects of increased CO2 to show themselves and (B) industry and consequently greenhouse gas production have gone up enormously this century, not so much at the beginning of the industrial revolution, when heavy industry was just getting started.

For more, I refer you to the National Academies or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...they are far more expert in this than I am, and I don't have time or energy for this tonight.

It has been scientificaly proven thats over the last hundred year or so the Earth's mean temperature has increased by about 1 degree F, 1/2 degree C

Then why are we seeing an effect now? Why not back when the industrial revolution was starting, or the time when we had the highest pollution levels?

Our pollution levels are far greater than they were back then. Remember that in the 19th century, most of the world wasn't industrialised. The slummy industrial wastelands have simply moved to developing countries.

It's not hard to find sources on google proving an increasing level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

http://physicist.org/history/climate/images/maunaloa.jpg

The CO2 levels are the higher right now than at any point in recent human history. And the global temperature has been going up at least since the beginning of the century...which makes sense given that (A) it presumably takes time for the effects of increased CO2 to show themselves and (B) industry and consequently greenhouse gas production have gone up enormously this century, not so much at the beginning of the industrial revolution, when heavy industry was just getting started.

For more, I refer you to the National Academies or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...they are far more expert in this than I am, and I don't have time or energy for this tonight.

Know why?

Volcanoes.

Did you know that one good strong volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of human industry combined in history?

Obviously, the only environmentally conscious course of action is to ban all Volcanoes.

It has been scientificaly proven thats over the last hundred year or so the Earth's mean temperature has increased by about 1 degree F, 1/2 degree C

Except for this year, which, apparently, it jumped about 20 and now we're all gonna die. Damn Republicans :rolleyes:

Know why?

Volcanoes.

Did you know that one good strong volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of human industry combined in history?

Obviously, the only environmentally conscious course of action is to ban all Volcanoes.

Except that natural processes absorb those emissions. It's all in balance...except the recent addition of human industrial processes.

Except that natural processes absorb those emissions. It's all in balance...except the recent addition of human industrial processes.

Yeah I read about that somewhere I'm sure... Natural CO2 molecules are so much easier for plants to digest than man-made ones.

:rolleyes:

I have better things to do.

Except for this year, which, apparently, it jumped about 20 and now we're all gonna die. Damn Republicans :rolleyes:

Don't forget the CEOs, and the evil companies! Damn them for making our like better and more convenient! If only we listen to Al Gore despite the fact that he flies around in a personal jet, and has a huge mansion that sucks up enough power for a small town. Of course he did buy an alternative fuel car, so that totally validate his message. :rolleyes:

Yeah I read about that somewhere I'm sure... Natural CO2 molecules are so much easier for plants to digest than man-made ones.

:rolleyes:

I have better things to do.

The point is that human activity introduces an ADDITIONAL amount of CO2, above that would occur due to natural processes. So the natural processes that absorb CO2 can't absorb the excess. So it builds up. And traps heat. And warms the planet.

Yeah I read about that somewhere I'm sure... Natural CO2 molecules are so much easier for plants to digest than man-made ones.

:rolleyes:

I have better things to do.

man made carbon emmisions are called CO (carbon monoxide). They lack one carbon molecule

man made carbon emmisions are called CO (carbon monoxide). They lack one carbon molecule

No. Manmade emissions include a variety of different greenhouse gases.

man made carbon emmisions are called CO (carbon monoxide). They lack one carbon molecule

Atmospheric Dynamics 101: CO does not cause Greenhouse EFfect (The culprit for Global Warming). The Greenhouse Effect is a result of excessive amounts of CO2. CO2 IS a product of industry, fossil fuel burning as well as CO. It's Chemistry. Learn some.

Don't waste people's time with that drivel. You either know what you're talking about or you do not. Read first, learn next, debate later.

Goodnight all. I'll check back when there's some education in the opposition.

No. Manmade emissions include a variety of different greenhouse gases.

I'm talking about carbon emissions. The most plentiful greenhouse gas.

man made carbon emmisions are called CO (carbon monoxide). They lack one carbon molecule

The carbon emissions we're concerned with are CO2. Normal carbon dioxide. The problem is that there's TOO MUCH of it. Carbon monoxide isn't a significant contributor to climate change.

man made carbon emmisions are called CO (carbon monoxide). They lack one carbon molecule

So sorry, I ment oxygen. It's late here so STFU. lol

Question: Can the process of global warming be retarded, or even reversed? Or is it too late?

Know why?

Volcanoes.

Did you know that one good strong volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of human industry combined in history?

Obviously, the only environmentally conscious course of action is to ban all Volcanoes.

how do you explain the unprecedented rate of increas in the last 150 years or so. if what you say of volcanoes is true are you then suggesting that there have been more volcanic eruptions in the past 150 years?

anyway, what i think is possibly most significant in the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels is deforestation. granted this has been happening for much longer than 150 years but perhaps not to the extent and rate that it now is. forests function as huge carbon dioxide sinks and they're much better at absorbing CO2 than their equivalent area of grassland or crop-land. while it is a good idea to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions as a short term goal, deforestation is something that ought to be reversed if at all possible.

I'm talking about carbon emissions. The most plentiful greenhouse gas.

Nope. The vast majority is carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is only a very weak contributor. Do some research.

Question: Can the process of global warming be retarded, or even reversed? Or is it too late?

It can be reversed, or somewhat repaired. It would just take the entire world to cut back on their consumption for fossil fuels.

Question: Can the process of global warming be retarded, or even reversed? Or is it too late?

I'm not entirely positive, but the way I see it, the longer we prolong the effect, the better our chances of developing an eventual solution.


So sorry, I ment oxygen. It's late here so STFU. lol

Riiiiiiight....

If the world's most industrial nations would follow the Kyoto accord this problem would be less of a problem.

I'm not entirely positive, but the way I see it, the longer we prolong the effect, the better our chances of developing an eventual solution.

But the longer we wait, the deeper the hole we have to get ourselves out of.

Question: Can the process of global warming be retarded, or even reversed? Or is it too late?

Well, if we reversed it(if it is possible), we would have a host of new problems to deal with.

The thing is, the Earth naturally goes through this. There is some evidence to support the claim that we just got out of a recent Mini-ice age, in a sense. This would indicate that the Earth is naturally getting warmer, overall.

HOWEVER it does infact appear that the average temperature is rising much faster than it should, by natural occurance. This leads many, including myself mind you, to believe that humans are involved with increasing the speed at which it is occurring. Can we stop it? Not without screwing even more up. Can we slow it? Yes. But really, that's only the beginning. We really need to ensure that many industries are not devastated by the effects, and that our infrastructure can handle the shift that will happen.

Did you know that one good strong volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of human industry combined in history?

it is impossible to know something if that thing is false.

where did you get an idiotic idea like that anyway? is rush limbaugh handing out climatology degrees these days?

I live in Minnesota(ya know the place that is famous for frigid winters and losing football teams) and normally we get several feet of snow by Christmas, with 8 days left, we haven't even had a quarter inch. today it was 50 degrees(F) outside. Care to refute this doubters?

1) Where's the Jet stream actually located? That's the biggest question.

2) How much moister is in the air? That's the 2nd biggest question.

3) What is coming down out of Canada? That's the third biggest question.

Maybe El Nino is responsible for the mild winter we're having here?

A good distinct possibility. Could be why we had an average hurricane season too.

So true. I personally subscribe to the theory that the global climate usually goes through a cycle from warm to cold.

That's my theory as well.

That's my theory as well.

Then you should accept global warming because that theory states that the Earth is supposed to be cooling now.

Then you should accept global warming because that theory states that the Earth is supposed to be cooling now.

Show me where I denied global warming is happening :D

The point is that human activity introduces an ADDITIONAL amount of CO2, above that would occur due to natural processes. So the natural processes that absorb CO2 can't absorb the excess.

and actually it appears that they are able to handle some of our emissions. we've just totally swamped the carbon cycle to an absolutely ridiculous extent.

I doubt it's global warming, or climate change if we care to be correct in our terminology.

But it is ridiculous. It's winter for God's sake. Give me cold, give me snow.

I doubt it's global warming, or climate change if we care to be correct in our terminology.

But it is ridiculous. It's winter for God's sake. Give me cold, give me snow.

Like I said, it's probably because of El Nino.

Like I said, it's probably because of El Nino.

And what causes the massive irregularity in El Nino? Oh, right. Global warming.

And what causes the massive irregularity in El Nino? Oh, right. Global warming.

El Nino has always caused climate irregularity in the states.

I live in Minnesota(ya know the place that is famous for frigid winters and losing football teams) and normally we get several feet of snow by Christmas, with 8 days left, we haven't even had a quarter inch. today it was 50 degrees(F) outside. Care to refute this doubters?
Hello, I also live in Minnesota and I can tell you that we normally don't get several feet of snow by Christmas. In fact we are only 5" short. If you remember we were having some unusually cold temps a couple weeks back and even got 1/2" snow. I forgot if it was late October or Early November but we got it and because the ground hadn't frozen it melted. There is also only a 76% chance any year that we'll get a white Christmas in Minnesota. This year it's at 10% but that's more about a drought than warming. I'd say this local warm spell is nothing more than a bunch of warm air moving in from elsewhere. In case you didn't notice, while we stayed high and dry the rest of the mid-west got a blizzard already. And there are plenty of years where we missed the white Christmas but got near average snopfalls for the season meaning that a lot could come in January. And then there is the possibility of this fitting into some cycle like El Nino or something. And the recent solar flare that shot straight at us.

Keep in mind that this is but one year out of billions this planet has been around. Thousands since the interglacial started. Hundreds since the little ice age and medieval warm period. Over a hundred since we started keeping records. Less than 40 since we've had satellites to help.

Don't be so impatient or so willing to jump to conclusions. 20 years ago it was global cooling. About 10 years ago it turned into gloabl warming. Now it's becoming global climate change. The failure and short-sightedness of the theories combined with the ambiguity of what is becoming the more popular current term makes it difficult for me to believe. But then I always have been known for my inability to have faith. There are numerous potential personal reasons for this but that's another topic.

Remember that panic never does any good and can very easily do a lot of bad. I hope I've put your fears to rest. Good day.

It would just take the entire world to cut back on their consumption for fossil fuels.

Really only the developed Nations

Really only the developed Nations

Why not the under-developed one? They might as well get a start on it as well.

20 years ago it was global cooling. About 10 years ago it turned into gloabl warming.

don't lie

Why not the under-developed one? They might as well get a start on it as well.

They need to worry about other things.

don't lie

Global Cooling was what was being discussed over 20 years ago.

Global Cooling was what was being discussed over 20 years ago.

Hmmm, actually it was discussed from 1940s to the 1970s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

They need to worry about other things.

Yea, but should we really make exception when it comes to our global climate?

Yea, but should we really make exception when it comes to our global climate?

If developed nations would cut down would the undeveloped ones really matter?

http://www.nef.org.uk/energyadvice/co2emissionsctry.htm

If developed nations would cut down would the undeveloped ones really matter?

Yes, because if they don't change their path from fossil fuels, then they'll make the same mistakes as the developed nation.

It's really all speculation. Teh global warming people are no better than the teh relgious people. When their predictions don't come true, they tell us we just don't understand the data or such.

Also, if you don't have a hard science degree, please refrain from opining.

Yes, because if they don't change their path from fossil fuels, then they'll make the same mistakes as the developed nation.

But the comment was cut back. If/when they industrialize we should help them with conservative technologies so that they don't fall into the same trap but they don't really need to cut back on what they produce now.

I live in Minnesota(ya know the place that is famous for frigid winters and losing football teams) and normally we get several feet of snow by Christmas, with 8 days left, we haven't even had a quarter inch. today it was 50 degrees(F) outside. Care to refute this doubters?Not a doubter, but one year does not make a trend.

Global Cooling was what was being discussed over 20 years ago.

20 years ago was 1986. the ipcc was formed in 1988 and released their first report on anthropogenic climate change in 1990.

20 years ago was 1986. the ipcc was formed in 1988 and released their first report on anthropogenic climate change in 1990.

You did see the word OVER before the 20 right?

It's really all speculation. Teh global warming people are no better than the teh relgious people.

bullshit

You did see the word OVER before the 20 right?

so you were agreeing with me calling dosuun a liar?

bullshit

You do realize you just proved Lacadaemon point right? You didn't offer any actual rebuttal. You just said "bullshit". That's pretty much equal to "Well it's in the Bible so it must be true!"

so you were agreeing with me calling dosuun a liar?

No he was saying that he was saying that the global cooling theory was over (as in past, beyond, etc.) 20 years. The global cooling theory died down in the 70's.

bullshit

A fine riposte, sir.

Yet how do you explain the dire predictions of 2006 not coming to pass. Moreover, how do you explain the UN's recent pullback?

Anyway, people like you shouldn't opine. Stick to philosophy.

Yet how do you explain the dire predictions of 2006 not coming to pass.
Which ones?

A fine riposte, sir.

Yet how do you explain the dire predictions of 2006 not coming to pass. Moreover, how do you explain the UN's recent pullback?

Anyway, people like you shouldn't opine. Stick to philosophy.Which predictions? And what pullback? The correction of predictions on grounds of better data that say ocean levels will not rise quite as high?

Which ones?

Oh let's start with how we were susspose to get Katrina sized hurricanes this last Summer on the East Coast.

Oh let's start with how we were susspose to get Katrina sized hurricanes this last Summer on the East Coast.Said who?

Which ones?

It was going to be the worst hurricane season EVAR!!!!

then it wasn't.

But that's not because the theory is wrong. It is because we just don't understand it fully or something.

I am neither for or against anthropogenic global warming. I just want it to be held up to the same level of scrutiny as any other hypothesis. In other words it should be falsifiable.

A fine riposte, sir.

all that was needed for an unserious and possibly delusional point. tell you what, when you guys have any evidence at all, then we can talk. until then, you are creationists but even more stupid - they at least think god told them what they believe is true, which would be a damn good reason to believe something if it were true.

Said who?

http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promo-ad.asp?dir=aw&page=hurr2006

all that was needed for an unserious and possibly delusional point. tell you what, when you guys have any evidence at all, then we can talk. until then, you are creationists but even more stupid - they at least think god told them what they believe is true, which would be a damn good reason to believe something if it were true.

and you have Al Gore, and other doomsayer.

Which predictions? And what pullback? The correction of predictions on grounds of better data that say ocean levels will not rise quite as high?

It's impossible to model. It's non-linear and has non defined inputs. Run all the simulations you want, they have nothing to do with reality.

I am neither for or against anthropogenic global warming. I just want it to be held up to the same level of scrutiny as any other hypothesis. In other words it should be falsifiable.

it is falsifiable. if you could show that we aren't actually pumping out gigatons of carbon each year, or that increased greenhouse gas concentrations do not cause a greenhouse effect, then you would have falsified it. the problem for you is that it is a rather hard task to falsify a true idea.

the scientific lit on the subject is massive and the debate has been intense. which is why its such a damn solid theory.

Meh. If it's warmer, it's global warming causing it. If it's colder, it's global warming causing it. How would one possibly refute it? :rolleyes:

and you have Al Gore, and other doomsayer.

generally speaking, al gore is right

all that was needed for an unserious and possibly delusional point. tell you what, when you guys have any evidence at all, then we can talk. until then, you are creationists but even more stupid - they at least think god told them what they believe is true, which would be a damn good reason to believe something if it were true.

No. I don't have any evidence. Nor do you. That's the point. You have no more idea what is going to happen tommorow than I do.

I'm the atheist. You're the christian in this case.

Mattorn;12101400']Meh. If it's warmer, it's global warming causing it. If it's colder, it's global warming causing it. How would one possibly refute it? :rolleyes:

You can't and don't bother to understand it because only the enlighten people can understand it and they were chosen to tell us how to live while jetting around the world! Don't even bother trying to test it in a Lab, Global Warming doesn't follow any rules of physics or reality!

You can't and don't bother to understand it because only the enlighten people can understand it and they were chosen to tell us how to live while jetting around the world! Don't even bother trying to test it in a Lab, Global Warming doesn't follow any rules of physics or reality!Lol. Tell me about it.

generally speaking, al gore is right

While he is boarding his private jet to fly back home to his mansion which uses enough power that it can light up a small town. Yea he's real concern about global warming alright.

No. I don't have any evidence. Nor do you.

well, you are right about yourself at least. me, i've got this rather massive pile of data over here...

While he is boarding his private jet to fly back home to his mansion which uses enough power that it can light up a small town. Yea he's real concern about global warming alright.

care to argue substance rather than fallacies?

Mattorn;12101409']Lol. Tell me about it.

Until they can show us, in a controlled setting (lab) that there is Global Warming and it is going to doom all of mankind, I will always be skeptic of it. Especially since no matter what the global climate does, it's the result of global warming!

it is falsifiable. if you could show that we aren't actually pumping out gigatons of carbon each year, or that increased greenhouse gas concentrations do not cause a greenhouse effect, then you would have falsified it. the problem for you is that it is a rather hard task to falsify a true idea.

the scientific lit on the subject is massive and the debate has been intense. which is why its such a damn solid theory.

I don't deny the gigatons. Nor do I deny I greenhouse effect. I do deny the extent and the relevancy of it. There is a fundamental issue of faith here.

Also, just because some idiot who couldn't get an engineering degree publishes a paper doesn't mean that it is the truth.

care to argue substance rather than fallacies?

Eh I'm just saying, if Global Warming really is an end of the world as we know it kind of deal, then why would he be using a jet or a big mansion? One would think that he would try to change his own lifestyle to try to at least offset this "The world is doom" scenario.

If there was an Ice Age, than it obviously melted without any human help. I doubt that what we're doing is having much of an effect now. Plus, why do all the temperature graphs go back at tops the 1860s?

well, you are right about yourself at least. me, i've got this rather massive pile of data over here...

Alright then. If you are so secure in you model and data, what's the average global temprature going to be during 2011?

Hell, I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you a +- of 1 kelvin, not rakine, to improve your chances.

So give me numbers.

http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promo-ad.asp?dir=aw&page=hurr2006
For one, they were wrong about the statement that the hurricane season would be above average. As far as I could see, it hasn't been.
Following on the heels of 2005's record-shattering hurricane season, 2006 will feature fewer storms, but will still be a season of above-average storm frequency. "There were 28 named storms last year, and we are expecting far fewer storms during this season. But keep in mind that it is not the number of storms that is significant, it is where they make landfall that sets the tone for the season," said Reeves.However, they were right about there being less than last season. Also, the prediction inclued the next four years:
Said AccuWeather.com Hurricane Center Meteorologist Bernie Rayno, "With the exception of the southern tip of the Florida peninsula, almost all the damage wrought by last year's storms in the U.S. occurred along the Gulf Coast. In recent history, it is the Gulf coast and the East Coast from the Carolinas southward that have borne the brunt of U.S. hurricane strikes. Because of this, people may be unaware that portions of the Northeast coast have been severely damaged by major hurricanes in the past, and that there is a dramatically increased likelihood that over the next five years the Northeast could be hit by a major hurricane. This could be the year."Note the predictive language. They're not saying that it's guaranteed, but that its highly likely.

Then again, how is accuweather a major proponent of global warming research?

Alright then. If you are so secure in you model and data, what's the average global temprature going to be during 2011?

Hell, I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you a +- of 1 kelvin, not rakine, to improve your chances.

So give me numbers.That's so generous of you. Exactly how many minutes will you be spending sleeping in three days time? And well let you say minutes and not demand seconds, because we're generous too.

Then again, how is accuweather a major proponent of global warming research?

Because Global Warming is susspose to give us more Katrina size storms and in higher frequencies.

Eh I'm just saying, if Global Warming really is an end of the world as we know it kind of deal, then why would he be using a jet or a big mansion?

because while he's a rich asshole, his lifestyle is actually more environmentally friendly than yours and he purchases carbon offsets to make it all completely emissions neutral. and that little thing about being a damn bit more effective at getting anthropogenic climate change into the discussion with all his flying around than if he just sat at home.

Because Global Warming is susspose to give us more Katrina size storms and in higher frequencies.Says who?

That's so generous of you. Exactly how many minutes will you be spending sleeping in three days time? And well let you say minutes and not demand seconds, because we're generous too.

Don't opine if you do not understand.

well, you are right about yourself at least. me, i've got this rather massive pile of data over here...
A good deal of which was debunked. Like all those hockey-stick shaped graphs. But lets ignore all that because it's really damn inconvenient for your argument, Free Soviets. Oh and don't call me a liar. The basic argument was that a bad theory based on incomplete data was bought by the community. And then when the short trend stopped everyone realized how stupid it was. And then they saw another short trend and made a new theory that was a direct contraditction of the previous.

because while he's a rich asshole, his lifestyle is actually more environmentally friendly than yours and he purchases carbon offsets to make it all completely emissions neutral.
So throwing money at smog will make it go away? Amazing!

Hey, Free Soviets,
http://aklemai.com/albums/forum/rebel.jpg

I'm convinced that global warming is a very serious problem but just because this has been a very mild winter it isn't proof. The temperature can't rise that much in one year just because of global warming. Last year we had lot's of snow here but we haven't had none so far this year.

because while he's a rich asshole, his lifestyle is actually more environmentally friendly than yours and he purchases carbon offsets to make it all completely emissions neutral.

So instead of doing something to actually change it in his own life, he pays someone else to make those changes. Ok, I need to go on a diet, but instead of doing the actual diet myself, I'm going to pay someone else to do the dieting. See how stupid that sounds?


and that little thing about being a damn bit more effective at getting anthropogenic climate change into the discussion with all his flying around than if he just sat at home.

Well, with technology the way they are, he could've easily done it from home, what with internet conferences.

At least I admit that I do drive a gas fueled car, I do fly a single prop piston aircraft, and I do add my own emission into the environment. However I'm not being a pompous dick by going around telling other people how they should live without changing my own lifestyle. Until Gore actually changes his own lifestyle (instead of paying someone else to change theirs), I think he needs to shut up. Because if the situation isn't serious enough that he doesn't change his own lifestyle, then why should we take it seriously?

Mattorn;12101438']If there was an Ice Age, than it obviously melted without any human help. I doubt that what we're doing is having much of an effect now.

hey, i once heard that there was a forest fire that started from lightning. this conclusively proves that we are not responsible for deforestation. never mind all those chainsaws and bulldozers....

Mattorn;12101438']Plus, why do all the temperature graphs go back at tops the 1860s?

you haven't looked very hard

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Clear proof of Global Warming:



http://www.beach-realty.com/pics/flares.jpg


Icebergs

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

How accurate can that chart be though, considering that we only recently been keeping up with weather and recording temps.

Clear proof of Global Warming:



http://www.beach-realty.com/pics/flares.jpg


Icebergs

Sarcasm?

A good deal of which was debunked.

don't lie, liar


So throwing money at smog will make it go away? Amazing!

it does if you pay somebody else to not pump any out. you see, otherwise both you and them would be racking up emissions. is it an optimum solution? of course not, it's market based bullshit.

At first, this was not a worrying phenomenon. However, my review of the relevant data (porn movies from the seveties through the nineties) showed a surprising increase in the number of women who are prepared to shove oversized buttplugs into their rectums.

Clearly there is a trend here, possibly caused by the increased number of italian shoes that the united states imports, so I decided to use my skills to model it.

At first I used a legrange interpolating polynomial. But that showed that despite the number of italian shoes the US imports, butt plug usage could actually go below zero. I don't know what below zero actually means, but I suspect it would involve me shoving one up my ass, so I did what every normal person would do and rejected the results.

So I made up a special model using math software I don't really understand. From this I proved conclusively that: because in the 1970s hardly any porn movies involved women shoving butt plugs up their ass, and in the 1990s there was a large number of women in porn moives shoving butt plugs up thier ass; in the future it will be inevitable that all women will have a butt plug up their ass.

I have evidence and models to prove this.

it does if you pay somebody else to not pump any out. you see, otherwise both you and them would be racking up emissions. is it an optimum solution? of course not, it's market based bullshit.

So since Al Gore refuses to make changes in his own lifestyle, then why the hell should we listen to him?

hey, i once heard that there was a forest fire that started from lightning. this conclusively proves that we are not responsible for deforestation. never mind all those chainsaws and bulldozers....
That would be pretty informative, except it's not. How would you account for the end of the Ice Age?

Know why?

Volcanoes.

Did you know that one good strong volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of human industry combined in history?

Obviously, the only environmentally conscious course of action is to ban all Volcanoes.

When discussing these things you should be sure to pick ideas that are no easily dismissed...

How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic (http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/volcanos-emit-more-co2.html)

Objection:
One good volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 than a decade of human emissions. It is ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 will have any effect.

Just another argument from ignorance here. Facts can be a useful tool if reality is your goal. The reaction you get here is a sure fire way to tell if whomever you are debating with is shooting for reality or not.

Answer:
Not only is this untrue, but it is obviously untrue when you examine the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If this were true, then that CO2 record would be full of spikes, one for each eruption. The fact is, it is a very smooth trend.

The sum total of all volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

Eh I'm just saying, if Global Warming really is an end of the world as we know it kind of deal, then why would he be using a jet or a big mansion? One would think that he would try to change his own lifestyle to try to at least offset this "The world is doom" scenario.I don't know. I think if Al Gore really cared about the environment he'd do something about the environmental impact of the books he prints, like printing it on paper that's 30% recycled and the rest of which comes from certified forestry management systems, produced chlorine free using 100% green power. And maybe he'd get a publisher that offsets the carbon emitted by producing the books by investing in renewable energy projects such as windfarms in Alaska.

Or maybe he could do something like donate all profits he makes from the movie and book to a bipartisan educational campaign.

But he wouldn't do that, would he?

Sarcasm?



Oh. By far.

-snip-

Umm, I doubt blogs are going to cut it here.

I don't know. I think if Al Gore really cared about the environment he'd do something about the environmental impact of the books he prints, like printing it on paper that's 30% recycled and the rest of which comes from certified forestry management systems, produced chlorine free using 100% green power. And maybe he'd get a publisher that offsets the carbon emitted by producing the books by investing in renewable energy projects such as windfarms in Alaska.

Or maybe he could do something like donate all profits he makes from the movie and book to a bipartisan educational campaign.

But he wouldn't do that, would he?

Nah, because it's an inconvenience "truth".

*snickers*

How accurate can that chart be though, considering that we only recently been keeping up with weather and recording temps.

they've got this great thing called 'science'. one of the things it allows us to do is look at something they call 'temperature proxies'. these 'proxies' include things such as isotopic variations that are directly linked with temperature and the like. truly this new learning is amazing.

if i were you, i'd look into it all - the 2001 ipcc report is up on the web for free and everything. and when you have questions, move on over to the journal articles it cites and the ones those cite, etc.

So instead of doing something to actually change it in his own life, he pays someone else to make those changes. Ok, I need to go on a diet, but instead of doing the actual diet myself, I'm going to pay someone else to do the dieting. See how stupid that sounds?Yes, you sound very stupid. Carbon emissions reduced in Nairobi will do exactly the exact same amount of carbon reduced in Washington DC. Paying someone else to ensure you diet would be a better comparison, since the comparing agent to your dietary needs would be the atmosphere.

How accurate can that chart be though, considering that we only recently been keeping up with weather and recording temps.

THere are ways of finding the temo from a particular year by looking at ice layers at the poles. It's fairly accurate.

I'd like to point out that the vast majority of scientists involved in looking at temperature change agree that we are going through a warming trend. Whether it is natural or manmade is unclear. Whether we can change it or should change it is unclear. WHether it is the start of another cycle is unclear but we DO know we go through such cycles, and that crazy yearly weather is NOT attributable to the cycles, but usually volcanic events. The mini ice age of a couple of centruries ago was just such an event.

I am a flaming liberal, so I know I'm awful for disputing these things, but having looked at the human record in North America over the past fifteen hundred years for the past few years, I am pretty sure that what we are seeing is fairly natural, and not outside the parameters of human existence. Nor is it particularly odd or crazy. We have record of precolumbian massive hurricanes, dry spells, wet spells, snowy spells. You name it and we can find extremes out there. It's reading the pattern taht is the trouble. We evidently really don't see much of one yet.

Nah, because it's an inconvenience "truth".

*snickers*I'm wondering whether you noticed that that's exactly what he's been doing.

So since Al Gore refuses to make changes in his own lifestyle, then why the hell should we listen to him?

because we don't engage in fallacious reasoning like thinking that ad hominems actually count as arguments, like the drooling morons do?

they've got this great thing called 'science'. one of the things it allows us to do is look at something they call 'temperature proxies'. these 'proxies' include things such as isotopic variations that are directly linked with temperature and the like. truly this new learning is amazing.

if i were you, i'd look into it all - the 2001 ipcc report is up on the web for free and everything. and when you have questions, move on over to the journal articles it cites and the ones those cite, etc.

Still doesn't tell me how accurate the chart is considering that we only started recording weather and temp in the late 1800's.

Still doesn't tell me how accurate the chart is considering that we only started recording weather and temp in the late 1800's.


you're missing the point. The chart is using data collected from the time periods it is marking. A tree ring from 1422 or an ice layer from 1422 will say what the weather was like, especially temperature. Ergo they are accurate.
Although tree rings are an inference, they are quite accurate usually. And the ice caps don't lie. At all. THey can generally tell you month by month what the average temoerature was for thousands of years back. MIllions if I am not mistaken. THey also collect other information from them like volcanic activity, meteor activity, comet falls, wood fire, human activities and suchlike. Amazing things, tree rings.

Yes, you sound very stupid. Carbon emissions reduced in Nairobi will do exactly the exact same amount of carbon reduced in Washington DC. Paying someone else to ensure you diet would be a better comparison, since the comparing agent to your dietary needs would be the atmosphere.

Still doesn't explain why if he really believes in his message that Global Warming will doom us all, that he just changes his own lifestyle instead of paying someone else to change. I guess global warming really is an inconvenience truth.

they've got this great thing called 'science'. one of the things it allows us to do is look at something they call 'temperature proxies'. these 'proxies' include things such as isotopic variations that are directly linked with temperature and the like. truly this new learning is amazing.


Which would require it being falsifiable. What would you give as the conditions for your global warming hypothesis to be falsified?

Until then it is religion.

Umm, I doubt blogs are going to cut it here.Are you postulating that the volcanoes bullshit is accurate?

I think another issue would be where the temperature-taking weather stations are located. If it's in a big city, well, duh, the temperatures are going to be warmer.

because we don't engage in fallacious reasoning like thinking that ad hominems actually count as arguments, like the drooling morons do?

I'm just pointing out that it must not be that serious of a problem for Mr. Gore to give up his ghetto-fabulous lifestyle.

you're missing the point. The chart is using data collected from the time periods it is marking. A tree ring from 1422 or an ice layer from 1422 will say what the weather was like, especially temperature. Ergo they are accurate.
Although tree rings are an inference, they are quite accurate usually. And the ice caps don't lie. At all. THey can generally tell you month by month what the average temoerature was for thousands of years back. MIllions if I am not mistaken. THey also collect other information from them like volcanic activity, meteor activity, comet falls, wood fire, human activities and suchlike. Amazing things, tree rings.

That is true.

Still doesn't tell me how accurate the chart is considering that we only started recording weather and temp in the late 1800's.

go look it up - the error bars for any particular model can be easily found

Are you postulating that the volcanoes bullshit is accurate?

No, I'm just saying find a better source than blogspot.com. Everyone can get a blog nowadays, and anyone can post any bullshit they want on a blog, doesn't mean it's true.

can we please quit being snide at each other and just discuss the damned issue here? This is tiring:rolleyes:

What would you give as the conditions for your global warming hypothesis to be falsified?

greenhouse gas concentration continues to go up, other forcing factors stay stable, average global temp doesn't change or goes down.

can we please quit being snide at each other and just discuss the damned issue here? This is tiring:rolleyes:

These are the following topics that are always going to have snide comments.

Abortion
Gay Marriage
Evolution
Global Warming
Gun Control
any Religious thread

So if you want to avoid snide comments, avoid these threads.

Still doesn't explain why if he really believes in his message that Global Warming will doom us all, that he just changes his own lifestyle instead of paying someone else to change.The funny thing is, when it comes to something like an Earth-encompassing atmosphere, that makes precious little difference. Besides, he has changed his lifestyle: He's producing books that offset their carbon emissions. I suggest you find some concrete evidence in favor of the assumption that his lifestyle really is that lavish and wasteful.
I guess global warming really is an inconvenience truth.That seems to be your strongest point; you repeat it often as though it has merit on its own.

i believe this has already been done. There have been stable periods that were tracked. But they are so short term taht IMHO they don't mean anything. but what do I know. I am just an anthro guy. I am not really with the science of it all beyond watching what conditions do to societies and suchlike at this point.

These are the following topics that are always going to have snide comments.

Abortion
Gay Marriage
Evolution
Global Warming
Gun Control
any Religious thread

So if you want to avoid snide comments, avoid these threads.
but Wil THESE ARE ALL THE FUN ONES!:(

i believe this has already been done. There have been stable periods that were tracked. But they are so short term taht IMHO they don't mean anything. but what do I know. I am just an anthro guy. I am not really with the science of it all beyond watching what conditions do to societies and suchlike at this point.

I think what we need to realize is that Mother Nature is a very resilient woman. Sure there may be little quirks here and there, but she has always found way to stabilize herself. Hell this earth has been here for over millions if not billions of years. I doubt we're going to be done in by global warming anytime soon. Quit worrying about it and go out and have fun.

greenhouse gas concentration continues to go up, other forcing factors stay stable, average global temp doesn't change or goes down.

what are other forcing factors?

because you drop that out, your theory is already false.

I'm just pointing out that it must not be that serious of a problem for Mr. Gore to give up his ghetto-fabulous lifestyle.Actually, I can refute that point now. The statement that Al Gore is living such a ghetto-fabulous life is false:
Surely he could make a start by flying less? "Beginning two years ago, I made a decision to live a carbon-neutral life," he says, explaining that his family and businesses now do all they can to reduce their emissions and to "offset" the rest by giving money to carbon-reduction schemes in India and eastern Europe.http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1786438,00.html

Actually, I can refute that point now. The statement that Al Gore is living such a ghetto-fabulous life is false:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1786438,00.html

Still sounds like he's paying someone else to do the actual work.

I think what we need to realize is that Mother Nature is a very resilient woman. Sure there may be little quirks here and there, but she has always found way to stabilize herself. Hell this earth has been here for over millions if not billions of years. I doubt we're going to be done in by global warming anytime soon. Quit worrying about it and go out and have fun.This world has been. The species living on this world have not. Mother Nature surviving is no guarantee that we will. It wouldn't be the first mass extinction.

Still sounds like he's paying someone else to do the actual work.When he has no other choice. Honestly, driving a car instead of cycling will emit the same amount of net carbon if you offset it with emission reductions elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with that, it's one atmosphere.

This world has been. The species living on this world have not. Mother Nature surviving is no guarantee that we will. It wouldn't be the first mass extinction.
That's exactly the point. This wouldn't be the first mass extinction. There have been several before and none were caused by us.

In fact, I'd say that dense cities do the most harm. Concentrated amounts of pollution are what did in the Chinese river dolphin in the wild just a while ago. If the Chinese had spread the population and industry out a little more it may have stopped it all together or at least put off the extinction for a while. Want to minimize impact? Spread it out. A slap will sting but it won't break bones like a pipe.

what are other forcing factors?

the entire list of other things that impact how warm it gets here.

http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309095069/html/images/p2000c604g2001.jpg


here's how you do it on the small scale. you build a sort of box able to receive energy input from outside with a thermometer inside. hell, make it two. then you fill one with straight up regular air, and the other with a higher concentration of co2 - lets try it with pure co2 first. now expose both to the same amount of external energy. then check the temps. if the co2 box and the regular one are the same temp, well then you fucked up somehow. but in theory, it is possible that they actually could be, and thus we would have falsified the global warming hypothesis.

its not that the idea is unfalsifiable - its just that we'd need to be wrong about some very basic concepts of physics or be imagining all those cars and smoke stacks to actually be wrong on it in general.

That's exactly the point. This wouldn't be the first mass extinction. There have been several before and none were caused by us.

and?

"people die all the time, officer. i don't see what the big deal is about me happening to be responsible for it this particular time."

That's exactly the point. This wouldn't be the first mass extinction. There have been several before and none were caused by us.The current is being caused by us though.

In fact, I'd say that dense cities do the most harm. Concentrated amounts of pollution are what did in the Chinese river dolphin in the wild just a while ago. If the Chinese had spread the population and industry out a little more it may have stopped it all together or at least put off the extinction for a while. Want to minimize impact? Spread it out. A slap will sting but it won't break bones like a pipe."The solution to pollution is dilution"? We've had this before. It's bullshit. You'll just make everyone equally unhealthy if you spread it out instead of forcing people to to get cleaner.

The current is being caused by us though.

"The solution to pollution is dilution"? We've had this before. It's bullshit. You'll just make everyone equally unhealthy if you spread it out instead of forcing people to to get cleaner.

in general we would have to dilute AND reduce population for any of taht to have an effect. It's the largenumbers more than the concentration that affects climates. We humans aren't naturally controlled by disease and hunger so we blossem like algea until we really do outgrow our resources. Then it;ll cool off again, if we really do impact global temp. We'll eventually hit a disease that will cull us. Hopefully it will be based on the part of the brain taht allows us to mimic spiritual experiences, and then religion will go *poof* and the rest of us can go on with our lives.:D

that was a joke. nobody kill me.:rolleyes:

here's how you do it on the small scale. you build a sort of box able to receive energy input from outside with a thermometer inside. hell, make it two. then you fill one with straight up regular air, and the other with a higher concentration of co2 - lets try it with pure co2 first. now expose both to the same amount of external energy. then check the temps. if the co2 box and the regular one are the same temp, well then you fucked up somehow. but in theory, it is possible that they actually could be, and thus we would have falsified the global warming hypothesis.


You are aware of the zeroth law of themodynamics, are you not?

As I said, don't opine.

The question isn't if there is a climate change going on or not. Clearly the weather is going haywire. The question to be asked is; Do I mind?

Here in Sweden we have, until just a few days ago, had temperatures well above freezing and sunny weather for the most part. Usually it's snowing and all kinds of shit break loose this time of year. Me, for one, love this climate.

Now now, I know it brings all kinds of trouble for peeps living on lowlands and such, but let me tell you most people here are seriously thinking of removing the exhaustpipes and catalysators from their cars... everyone is loving the milder climate.

You are aware of the zeroth law of themodynamics, are you not?

relevance?

DO get a good "vapor around the planet" it is more liekly to cool us off than heat us up. Sunlight won't get through the clouds. Crops won't grow. Ice will. Glaciers come back. You people invade ENgland again. And some guy with a red beardsails to america and starts a colony, only to be eaten by Rule Caucasia in a desperate fit of hunger.

Umm, I doubt blogs are going to cut it here.

No sure the blog may not be a good source itself.. but the info in it is pretty easily testable.

just search for carbon dioxide in

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/emissions_0207.pdf

and you will note that the impact of volcanic output in comparison to anthropogenic output (measurable by examining carbon isotopes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) is about 100 x less

So yes volcanos have an impact but its pretty minor in the scheme of things... and in fact large eruptions will normally be associated with small cooling effects due to output of Sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. (which is why you won't find any dramatic records for eruptions in past data.

I agree that there is a lot more work to be done on Climate Change before it is conclusive... but the evidence is very very suggestive...

In most cases its worth doing something about scientific predictions. I mean predicting stuff is really all science is ever good for. Its hard to tell how often their predictions are right and how often they are wrong due to people actually doing something to avoid them,.. SARS for instance.. or the CFC induced hole in the Ozone layer... but does that mean we should just ignore the predictions and just see what happens? We only have one test sample.... it would usually be best to err on the side of caution don't you think... Its not like if we get things wrong we can just pop down to the store and buy a new atmosphere to live in....

relevance?

Nothing at all.

relevance?
If two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.



I get it. You don't?

The question isn't if there is a climate change going on or not. Clearly the weather is going haywire. The question to be asked is; Do I mind?

Here in Sweden we have, until just a few days ago, had temperatures well above freezing and sunny weather for the most part. Usually it's snowing and all kinds of shit break loose this time of year. Me, for one, love this climate.

Now now, I know it brings all kinds of trouble for peeps living on lowlands and such, but let me tell you most people here are seriously thinking of removing the exhaustpipes and catalysators from their cars... everyone is loving the milder climate.Just wait until the people can't afford cars because the tourists stop coming due to the melted glaciers. ;)

If two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.



I get it. You don't?

It isn't relevant to what he was talking about.

If two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

I get it. You don't?

there is nothing to get

It isn't relevant to what he was talking about.

I know that. I was trying to tease him you dope:(
you messed my cunning plan all up.

Ya'll are no fun AT ALL *cries*

I actually barely got his lilttle set of boxes and stuff. If you had been reading my earlier posts you would have noticed that I stated that I don't really get all the global warming stuff. I just know how temp change affects US. Whcih ain't really of any pertinance as far as I can tell at 11:30 at night on a sunday night...

The question isn't if there is a climate change going on or not. Clearly the weather is going haywire. The question to be asked is; Do I mind?

Here in Sweden we have, until just a few days ago, had temperatures well above freezing and sunny weather for the most part. Usually it's snowing and all kinds of shit break loose this time of year. Me, for one, love this climate.

Now now, I know it brings all kinds of trouble for peeps living on lowlands and such, but let me tell you most people here are seriously thinking of removing the exhaustpipes and catalysators from their cars... everyone is loving the milder climate.

Not sure how much agriculture goes on in Sweden.. but most places that use agriculture kind of rely on the climate staying pretty much the same. Not a huge pinapple growing industry in Sweden I am guessing but you probably grow potatoes... changing climate is bad for agriculture... it likes things to remain stable.

It isn't relevant to what he was talking about.

did you get the feeling that lacy got scared and tossed off something vaguely sciencey feeling in the hopes that he could bluff his way out without having to admit that he doesn't know fuck all on the subject?

I actually barely got his lilttle set of boxes and stuff. If you had been reading my earlier posts you would have noticed that I stated that I don't really get all the global warming stuff. I just know how temo change affects US. Whcih ain't really of any pertinance as far as I can tell at 11:30 at night on a sunday night...

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

thanks man :)

I am always happy to learn. I'm sort of confused actually, what the affect of greenhouse gasses will actally have on a cloud barrier of they get thick enough...Enough water melts and it would form a cloud barrier which would to my mind COOL US OFF rather than heat us any more...Am I worng tehre?

Okay, I just did an experiment. I have a box of CO2 in my house (the kitchen fire extinguisher), and I also have a box of non CO2 (a jar full of air).

So I put them both in the oven and heated them to 200 degrees. (F).

Holy shit, they both had the same temperature. My candy thermometer reported that they were exactly the same as the oven temp.

So, please refrain from talking about climate change. You to can do this experiment.

Okay, I just did an experiment. I have a box of CO2 in my house (the kitchen fire extinguisher), and I also have a box of non CO2 (a jar full of air).

So I put them both in the oven and heated them to 200 degrees. (F).

Holy shit, they both had the same temperature. My candy thermometer reported that they were exactly the same as the oven temp.

So, please refrain from talking about climate change. You to can do this experiment.Please tell me you're kidding. You can't be this stupid.

thanks man :)

I am always happy to learn. I'm sort of confused actually, what the affect of greenhouse gasses will actally have on a cloud barrier of they get thick enough...Enough water melts and it would form a cloud barrier which would to my mind COOL US OFF rather than heat us any more...Am I worng tehre?

http://www.realclimate.org/

is great. Its a bunch of info with legit references posted by climate scientists.. it can be a little technical but if you stick to the more general articles its pretty easy to get a handle on.

Please tell me you're kidding. You can't be this stupid.

Nah, 450f is the break pressure. Ring theory and all. I was well within the safety margin.


Anyway, I just disproved free soviets global warming theory. And that is what counts.

Nah, 450f is the break pressure. Ring theory and all. I was well within the safety margin.


Anyway, I just disproved free soviets global warming theory. And that is what counts.

It seems you are, since you missed Laerod's point entirely.

It seems you are, since you missed Laerod's point entirely.

Oh, my, fucking, god. I. Am. So. Wrong.

Good job you pointed that out to me sport. Tell you what, in the future, when you want anything that actually makes sense, or shit to work, go the fuck and ask a liberal arts student. I'm sure they can also build a bridge or cure your cancer. Plus you'll enjoy them being snide while they accomplish nothing.

here's how you do it on the small scale. you build a sort of box able to receive energy input from outside with a thermometer inside. hell, make it two. then you fill one with straight up regular air, and the other with a higher concentration of co2 - lets try it with pure co2 first. now expose both to the same amount of external energy. then check the temps. if the co2 box and the regular one are the same temp, well then you fucked up somehow. but in theory, it is possible that they actually could be, and thus we would have falsified the global warming hypothesis.


I say again. The zeroth law of thermodynamics.

I win. Totally.

Are people so stupid that they can't see this?

Nah, 450f is the break pressure. Ring theory and all. I was well within the safety margin.


Anyway, I just disproved free soviets global warming theory. And that is what counts.No, I'm serious. Believing that your experiment has anything in common with the greenhouse effect other than that it involves carbon dioxide is plain idiotic. What was his global warming theory and why did you manage to disprove it by heating air and a fire extinguisher?

I say again. The zeroth law of thermodynamics.

I win. Totally.

Are people so stupid that they can't see this?

can't see that if it was the case that the earth, the sun, and the surrounding vast bits of space were all the same temp, then it wouldn't matter how much co2 we pumped out?

*falls over*

see you tommorrow you guys. SOmeone figure it all out and save me from freezing to death. Wait, I was going to drawon cuz I am in LA huh?

Well, it doesn't matter. I'll be passed out.

No, I'm serious. Believing that your experiment has anything in common with the greenhouse effect other than that it involves carbon dioxide is plain idiotic. What was his global warming theory and why did you manage to disprove it by heating air and a fire extinguisher?

Well actually heating the air and the fire extinguisher might actually be a vaguely meaningful as if you had 2 identical fire extinguishers one with air and one with carbon dioxide the carbon dioxide one might heat at a different rate.. they would both reach the same eventual temperature but at a different rate.. not really sure if this info would have any relavance to climate change or not.. but you might observe .. well something anyway...

No, I'm serious. Believing that your experiment has anything in common with the greenhouse effect other than that it involves carbon dioxide is plain idiotic. What was his global warming theory and why did you manage to disprove it by heating air and a fire extinguisher?


here's how you do it on the small scale. you build a sort of box able to receive energy input from outside with a thermometer inside. hell, make it two. then you fill one with straight up regular air, and the other with a higher concentration of co2 - lets try it with pure co2 first. now expose both to the same amount of external energy. then check the temps. if the co2 box and the regular one are the same temp, well then you fucked up somehow. but in theory, it is possible that they actually could be, and thus we would have falsified the global warming hypothesis.

I say again, the ZEROTH LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

can't see that if it was the case that the earth, the sun, and the surrounding vast bits of space were all the same temp, then it wouldn't matter how much co2 we pumped out?

That has nothing to do with your case for it being falsifiable. You gave the conditions, I demonstrated they were wrong.

I say again, the ZEROTH LAW OR THERMODYNAMICS.

Well, you fucked up on his experiment, because you did not expose both to a set amount of energy. Rather, you exposed both to a 200 degree climate, meaning that neither could go higher than 200 degrees. It's basic physics.

Well, you fucked up on his experiment, because you did not expose both to a set amount of energy. Rather, you exposed both to a 200 degree climate, meaning that neither could go higher than 200 degrees. It's basic physics.

Please fuck off until you understand thermodynamics. I really am tired of people who think they have 'insight'. You don't.

Please fuck off until you understand thermodynamics. I really am tired of people who think they have 'insight'. You don't.

And your almighty doctorate in physics came from where? Oh, do you not have one?

Please fuck off until you understand thermodynamics. I really am tired of people who think they have 'insight'. You don't.

I have a degree in thermodynamics.. (well chemical engineering and I had to take 3rd year thermodynamics) but I am not sure if I understand the relavance of your (admittedly entertaining) experiment. It was a few years ago though.. I graduated in 96 so I might be a bit rusty.

What exactly were you trying to show by heating 2 different things to the same temperature? That 2 differnet things could be the same temperature?

I am more than happy to accept there might be some point to it.. I am just not sure what that point would be??

And more importantly what its relavance to Anthropogenic Climate Change might be??

Well, you fucked up on his experiment, because you did not expose both to a set amount of energy. Rather, you exposed both to a 200 degree climate, meaning that neither could go higher than 200 degrees. It's basic physics.

nor were they identical containers, which would throw the whole thing off, under the original premise of holding other factors stable. of course lacy actually knows this and is probably just fucking around (we know he isn't actually retarded, just frequently wrong). and really, we'd find that the two containers would wind up at different internal temps at any particular time until they achieved equilibrium even in his badly misread version of the experiment. but in lacy's particular case, i think there is a possibility that the fire extinguisher would explode - anyone know what sort of temp you'd need to hit for that?

The issue is overblown and exaggerated.

(1) Natural processes produce a lot more of those gases than humans. If we do have a contribution, it's be more likely a fraction of a percent. Why are we exaggerating that very minuscule contribution?
(2) The term is a misnomer, as the world is really warming, but it is part of the natural climate cycles of the earth.
(3) Climate is different from weather. It's absolute manipulation when a simple freak of weather is attributed to climate change caused by that very minuscule contribution.
(4) During certain periods of geologic history, the Earth's climate was even warmer than present temperatures. Perhaps the dinosaurs drove trucks and had coal-fired power plants back then?
(5) There is no firm scientific evidence for global warming. It was just based on computer models predicting dire change. They have consistently readjusted the estimates during the past few years as their predictions are way over the real change.
(6) If carbon dioxide can reflect heat from earth back to earth, then surely, it can reflect heat from space back to space.
(7) Plants produce carbon dioxide during the night when photosynthesis does not occur, but they take take it back up during the day.
(8) Fun fact: 50-60% of your ordinary fart is carbon dioxide, plus some methane, which according to believers, are "greenhouse gases". Vegetarians would produce more fart and therefore more methane and carbon dioxide because of the greater amount of indigestible material passing into the colon, which is food for these gas-producing bacteria :) . So we see, natural causes/contributors are more predominant that human causes. I am wondering why we are zeroing on those factors and exaggerating the issue.

And more importantly what its relavance to Anthropogenic Climate Change might be??

a desperate hope for a way out of accepting the idea once you've already admitted that humans are responsible for increasing in co2 concentrations in the atmosphere. doesn't seem to be working for him too well though.

(1) Natural processes produce a lot more of those gases than humans. If we do have a contribution, it's be more likely a fraction of a percent. Why are we exaggerating that very minuscule contribution?

firstly, you can actually look up the numbers you know. and secondly, because our emissions contribution maps on quite nicely to the increased co2 concentration in the atmosphere, and nothing else has increased at all. therefore it is our fault.

(2) The term is a misnomer, as the world is really warming, but it is part of the natural climate cycles of the earth.

evidence?

(4) During certain periods of geologic history, the Earth's climate was even warmer than present temperatures. Perhaps the dinosaurs drove trucks and had coal-fired power plants back then?

is this really the new denialist line? its not even halfway decent.

3.4% of the total increase is caused by humans, the rest is natural.

The [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explicitly admits a lack of knowledge about climate factors, stating there is “low” or “very low” scientific understanding for 9 of the 12 factors thought to affect global climate . For two factors, there is “medium” understanding. The IPCC says there is a “high” level of understanding only for the greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect.

400,000 years ago, the Antarctic ice sheet collapsed. The early Carboniferous period was hotter than our present climate. See here (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)

Read this (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/). It's better to be informed of both sides first than making a decision.

I don't like being accused of being a denier. I actually believe that we add a little to the natural global warming, but my point is that the issue is grossly exaggerated.

3.4% of the total increase is caused by humans, the rest is natural.

bullshit. care to provide a source?

3.4% of the total increase is caused by humans, the rest is natural.

That's not what your source actually says.

Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural

Do you know what an "increase" is?

The issue is overblown and exaggerated.


Quite possibly so. The scientific community is rarely alarmist about any issue. The media on the other hand is a different beast entirely. I think you will find that the issue has been building up quite a head of steam in the scientific community. It is very well established that we are effecting our climate. How severe that effect is the issue of debate.


(1) Natural processes produce a lot more of those gases than humans. If we do have a contribution, it's be more likely a fraction of a percent. Why are we exaggerating that very minuscule contribution?

Because small changes from an equilibrium position can have a big effect.

Imagine a boat floating in the ocean. The boat weighs several tonnes. Now imagine the boat gets a leak... its only a very small leak. Only a few mls a day. Initially it wouldn't make a difference.. the boat weighs several tonnes.. whats a few extra mls you say. Give it some time though and those mls become lts.. the litres decrease the boyancy and the the leak becomes faster.. eventually the boat would sink. (provided it doesn't have self draining hull, pump etc etc ) dispite the only small change compared to the normally massive weight of the boat.

(2) The term is a misnomer, as the world is really warming, but it is part of the natural climate cycles of the earth.

The natural cycles are definitly a contributing factor.. butthey are really being outgunned by the recent changes. Natural cycles have in the past been much much slower.

(3) Climate is different from weather. It's absolute manipulation when a simple freak of weather is attributed to climate change caused by that very minuscule contribution.

Agreed to a point. Climate deals with percentages. While you can't attribute a single storm to a climatic effect you may be able to attribute trends.

(4) During certain periods of geologic history, the Earth's climate was even warmer than present temperatures. Perhaps the dinosaurs drove trucks and had coal-fired power plants back then?

The mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
So yes it was warmer then but for different reasons. And these reasons are not to do with the earths orbit they are to do with the earths changing atmosphere.

(5) There is no firm scientific evidence for global warming. It was just based on computer models predicting dire change. They have consistently readjusted the estimates during the past few years as their predictions are way over the real change.

well no .. thats not really true. There are models predicting future global warming.. but an overall global warming has been measured over the last century. Also the models they use are actually based on the most up to date scientific concensus. They aren't just plucked out of thin air and given a whirl on massive super conputers just for a bit of a laugh.

(6) If carbon dioxide can reflect heat from earth back to earth, then surely, it can reflect heat from space back to space.

The key to the greenhouse effect is the fact that the atmosphere is relatively transparent to visible solar radiation but strongly absorbing at the wavelengths of the thermal infrared radiation emitted by the surface and the atmosphere.

(7) Plants produce carbon dioxide during the night when photosynthesis does not occur, but they take take it back up during the day.

Your point being? yes the planet as a whole breaths in and out .... and? Its not like the plants take in all the CO2...

(8) Fun fact: 50-60% of your ordinary fart is carbon dioxide, plus some methane, which according to believers, are "greenhouse gases". Vegetarians would produce more fart and therefore more methane and carbon dioxide because of the greater amount of indigestible material passing into the colon, which is food for these gas-producing bacteria :)

Also true.. in fact the cattle industry is responsible for a large portion of greenhouse gas increase.. not only from the farts but from the land clearing that goes towards creating grazing land for them to make farts from...

. So we see, natural causes/contributors are more predominant that human causes. I am wondering why we are zeroing on those factors and exaggerating the issue.

because its the Human contribution that is throwing things off kilter.

I agree the issue may well be exaggerated... or it may be understated.. the point is that it is an issue that does need attention.

In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect.

It's important in this context to compare the atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 and H20. A molecule of water vapor spends about a week in the atmosphere where carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for 5-200 years. Water vapor fluctations are significant but, unlike CO2, they are rapidly precipitated out of the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere now will be around for your great grandchildren's children.

When you add more water to the atmosphere it just ends up leaving again via rain. If you take it out it ends up just evaporating from the ocean. So you can see that although it has a big effect it is likely (so long as the surface area of the ocean remains about the same size) to maintain that effect dispite human induced fluctuations.

Carbon dioxide levels on the other hand once added may take hundreds of years to be removed.. making it possible to cause changes to the climate by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

omfg bush juts havs uh wether mashin! he runinng teh plant so he can ensalv al us! tehr wuz no climut chanj b4 ppl n eval republicns! tehy gona killzorz us al wit teh poyzun GHGz! we al fri lick teh poor bakd potatatatoz! it al teh busahz fallt! we muts al trow awy tekn-no...teh eval tek! me am scintitz so me no! retrn to teh trez n sav teh word!!!11

I live in Minnesota(ya know the place that is famous for frigid winters and losing football teams) and normally we get several feet of snow by Christmas, with 8 days left, we haven't even had a quarter inch. today it was 50 degrees(F) outside. Care to refute this doubters?

That, in no possible way, is proof.

I've noticed it, its been way to warm for the UK this winter. We had snow on the ground in October last year, snow in November, snow in December this year no snow and I havn't seen to many frosty days.

Jumping to conclusions on Global Warming again, we can have 'odd' years like people have said about El Nino, tilt in Earths Orbit, possibly higher levels of water vapour in atmosphere.

I live in Minnesota(ya know the place that is famous for frigid winters and losing football teams) and normally we get several feet of snow by Christmas, with 8 days left, we haven't even had a quarter inch. today it was 50 degrees(F) outside. Care to refute this doubters?

Refute what?

Global warming probably is happening. It's happened before and there's no reason to expect it not to happen again. Amother Ice Age may come along, too. Maybe an asteroid or two for a coupla extinction events. Or, maybe the Yellowstone caldera will blow its top.

Thing is, I don't believe that Man has any meaningful contribution to global warming.

I believe that Nature can easily out perform anything Man can do, in regards to the climate - absent a full nuclear exchange.

Besides, someday the Sun will go Red Giant on us and cook the Earth to a cinder. But, libs will probably still try to blame Man for it..

for those in denial about Global Warming......if we ignore the scientific evidence and do nothing among the possible consequences the media has said very little about is a mass extinction(us included).....if those who support global warming are wrong and we waste a few trillion dollars we all can have a good laugh about our silly scientists....which is the more prudent course of action?

3.4% of the total increase is caused by humans, the rest is natural.


Er...I think the junkscience thing says that it's 3.4% of the total turnover, not the increase. As in, the total amount of CO2 put out by everything, rather than the CO2 put out - the amount absorbed by plants.

Ice core studies have shown that CO2 levels are at their highest in 800,000 years, and that levels are increasing at a rate 50 times faster than at any other point in the last 800,000 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm). So either we're living in a massive statistical anomaly, or humans are to blame for raising CO2 levels.


400,000 years ago, the Antarctic ice sheet collapsed. The early Carboniferous period was hotter than our present climate. See here (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)


Yes, and CO2 levels were about four times higher. Which would be fine if we were dinosaurs who had evolved to live llike that, or we didn't have so many coastal cities, or if it wasn't happening so ridiculously fast.

It's true that in the last ten thousand years or so (the Holocene) climate has been unusually mild and stable. But then, it's not a coincidence that that's when agriculture and human civilisation developed. And now we might be bringing that stability to an end.

generally speaking, al gore is right

Generally speaking, AlGore is an idiot.

The man couldn't even beat George Bush in an election where he was the incumbent VP from a very popular president...

apparently many ski resorts in the alps are suffering cuz they haven't had any snow. many are resorting to using snow machines.

some aren't even cold enough for the snow machines

Generally speaking, AlGore is an idiot.

The man couldn't even beat George Bush in an election where he was the incumbent VP from a very popular president...

which has what to do with his beliefs about anthropogenic climate change, excatly?

which has what to do with his beliefs about anthropogenic climate change, excatly?

It gives me pause to actually consider his idiocies.

here we are Monday December 17th 2006, and not a SINGLE snow flake has fallen on us this year... and just yesterday it was 65 degrees F... IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER. :eek:

HAHA, if only winter didn't start on the 21st. I like how the same people who claim to be enlightened about climate change also have no idea when the goddamn seasons change.

for those in denial about Global Warming......if we ignore the scientific evidence and do nothing among the possible consequences the media has said very little about is a mass extinction(us included).....if those who support global warming are wrong and we waste a few trillion dollars we all can have a good laugh about our silly scientists....which is the more prudent course of action?

And just how can we stop a natural process from occuring? Here's a tip, you can't.

HAHA, if only winter didn't start on the 21st. I like how the same people who claim to be enlightened about climate change also have no idea when the goddamn seasons change.

A good distinct point. LOL! We are still in the middle of fall. :D

If I went out and said "one winter's worth of data proves that there's no global warming" I'm sure that people like Nazz would say, "you're out in Retardo World".

So, I'll tell the OP that this is one winter's worth of data - at your location.

Why don't we rely instead on the scientific collection of global data across many years (as many as possible)?

Speaking of cold, it sure did a number on those guys on Mount Hood. I guess there wasn't enough global warming for them.

I'm not arguing that global warming isn't real - I'm just saying that you're one data point at one specific time. Irrelevant.

I live in Minnesota(ya know the place that is famous for frigid winters and losing football teams) and normally we get several feet of snow by Christmas, with 8 days left, we haven't even had a quarter inch. today it was 50 degrees(F) outside. Care to refute this doubters?

Same here, in Virginia. Warm as hell. Pissing me off too. If I don't get a winter, you will see no end of my displeasure...

Same here, in Virginia. Warm as hell. Pissing me off too. If I don't get a winter, you will see no end of my displeasure...

It's cold enough in Washington State...

It's cold enough in Washington State...

Damn you...:D

Damn you...:D

I'm in Virginia, too. It's ok by me if it's warm.

If I wanted snow, I would live in northern Ontario.

I'm in Virginia, too. It's ok by me if it's warm.

If I wanted snow, I would live in northern Ontario.

That's what makes Virginia, well, Virginia. Why I'm a resident. It has terrific seasons. Four of them. And dangit, November through February will be cold. With snow. Lots. The other seasons have their time, but not during the end of fall and winter. Oh drama.

And just how can we stop a natural process from occuring? Here's a tip, you can't.

Any process occurring in the universe is, by definition, natural. And humanity has proven in the last hundred years that not only can they stop a natural process, but they can even reverse it. The world should be cooling now. It's warming. Is it really that difficult to see what's wrong with that?

That's what makes Virginia, well, Virginia. Why I'm a resident. It has terrific seasons. Four of them. And dangit, November through February will be cold. With snow. Lots. The other seasons have their time, but not during the end of fall and winter. Oh drama.

When I was a kid (in the late 1960s), that was winter.

Now, winter, if you're lucky, is February (and maybe a little of January).

But I am the first draft for snow shoveling, so the less snow, the better.

Any process occurring in the universe is, by definition, natural. And humanity has proven in the last hundred years that not only can they stop a natural process, but they can even reverse it. The world should be cooling now. It's warming. Is it really that difficult to see what's wrong with that?

I like to see us stop a supernova from happening. That will not happen. I like to see us control mother nature, that is not going to happen either. We cannot prevent Global Warming from happening either. So again, how do you suggest we stop global warming which is a natural phenomena?

I like to see us stop a supernova from happening. That will not happen. I like to see us control mother nature, that is not going to happen either. We cannot prevent Global Warming from happening either. So again, how do you suggest we stop global warming which is a natural phenomena?

False equivocation. Same as saying that you can't lift a truck, ergo you can't lift a penny.

Also, did you even bother to read my post? We stopped and reversed the cooling of the planet. Since the planet would normally be cooling now, stopping the warming should be even easier than stopping the cooling was.

We stopped and reversed the cooling of the planet.

We did? You are 100% sure of that? If you actually believe that, then I have a beach for sale in Miami.

Since the planet would normally be cooling now, stopping the warming should be even easier than stopping the cooling was.

Not everything works like clockwork or on a set schedule. You will have devients. So to say that we are actually doing something, may not be 100% correct.

We did? You are 100% sure of that? If you actually believe that, then I have a beach for sale in Miami.

All scientific evidence points to the Earth cooling before the Industrial Revolution. You're pretty much asking that I ignore all science, which is what is known as stupid.

All scientific evidence points to the Earth cooling before the Industrial Revolution. You're pretty much asking that I ignore all science, which is what is known as stupid.

No Medieval Warm Period for you.

All scientific evidence points to the Earth cooling before the Industrial Revolution. You're pretty much asking that I ignore all science, which is what is known as stupid.

HAHA! Now you are taking things out of context. That's ok. You can continue to do so. Nice job of dodging my question about how we stopped global cooling btw. We can neither stop nor start a cooling process nor can we start or stop the heating process of a planet.

No Medieval Warm Period for you.

Which existed only in Europe.

Which existed only in Europe.

Sure. And in the Chesapeake Bay area in the US. And a few other areas, such as Greenland.

But we'll ignore that, because it doesn't fit the other data.

HAHA! Now you are taking things out of context. That's ok. You can continue to do so. Nice job of dodging my question about how we stopped global cooling btw. We can neither stop nor start a cooling process nor can we start or stop the heating process of a planet.

We stopped global cooling by introducing massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, making it far more difficult for infrared radiation to escape, thus causing the planet to warm, and the temperature to rise instead of fall. Unless, of course, you want to argue that stopping doesn't mean bringing to a halt...

Sure. And in the Chesapeake Bay area in the US. And a few other areas, such as Greenland.

But we'll ignore that, because it doesn't fit the other data.

Greenland is in Europe. And one tiny area without the most stable climate anyways does not a useful objection make.

And of course, you ignore Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, and almost all of North America, since they don't fit your data.

We stopped global cooling by introducing massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, making it far more difficult for infrared radiation to escape, thus causing the planet to warm, and the temperature to rise instead of fall. Unless, of course, you want to argue that stopping doesn't mean bringing to a halt...

Now if you can actually prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we did indeed stopped the cooling process, then maybe I will put stock into what you are saying. Since I know that you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we shut down the cooling process, then I will not put stock into what you or any scientist is stating since we have only begun to crack the surface of our atmosphere as well as climatology. It is not an exact science in case you have forgotten.

We did? You are 100% sure of that? If you actually believe that, then I have a beach for sale in Miami.

Ha! I have one for him in Arizona.

Greenland is in Europe. And one tiny area without the most stable climate anyways does not a useful objection make.

And of course, you ignore Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, and almost all of North America, since they don't fit your data.

If you go back to those times, there's no data at all for most of the world.

Isn't that convenient?

Now if you can actually prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we did indeed stopped the cooling process, then maybe I will put stock into what you are saying. Since I know that you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we shut down the cooling process, then I will not put stock into what you or any scientist is stating since we have only begun to crack the surface of our atmosphere as well as climatology. It is not an exact science in case you have forgotten.

Science doesn't deal in proof. Try again.

However, all of available evidence (of which there is a massive quantity) suggest that humanity is responsible for the reversal of the cooling trend that existed prior to the industrial revolution.

If you go back to those times, there's no data at all for most of the world.

Isn't that convenient?

Because you certainly can't tell past temperatures from tree rings. Oh, you can? I'm sorry, you fail.

Because you certainly can't tell past temperatures from tree rings. Oh, you can? I'm sorry, you fail.

Oh, you fail. It's already generally accepted that climate data isn't available for every site in the world, prior to the accepted standardization of temperature measurement.

It's all subject to interpretation.

Science doesn't deal in proof. Try again.

No it just offers facts and figures from things studied which is what they consider proof with opinions based on data they gathered. Hence why nothing is an exact science and why Global Warming remains a theory and not a law.

However, all of available evidence (of which there is a massive quantity) suggest that humanity is responsible for the reversal of the cooling trend that existed prior to the industrial revolution.

I'm still waiting for this proof that we did indeed stop global cooling. None so far has been forthcoming.

Oh, you fail. It's already generally accepted that climate data isn't available for every site in the world, prior to the accepted standardization of temperature measurement.

It's all subject to interpretation.

Indeed.

No it just offers facts and figures from things studied which is what they consider proof with opinions based on data they gathered. Hence why nothing is an exact science and why Global Warming remains a theory and not a law.
One, a theory is the single highest ranking position in science. Two, by your logic, all science should be ignored.


I'm still waiting for this proof that we did indeed stop global cooling. None so far has been forthcoming.
If the globe was cooling, and now it is warming, then global cooling stopped. If humanity caused the warming, then humanity stopped global cooling. All evidence points to the massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere via humanity causing the increase in global temperatures.

Oh, you fail. It's already generally accepted that climate data isn't available for every site in the world, prior to the accepted standardization of temperature measurement.

It's all subject to interpretation.

Are you honestly claiming that tree rings vary based on whether the temperature was measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit?

No it just offers facts and figures from things studied which is what they consider proof with opinions based on data they gathered. Hence why nothing is an exact science and why Global Warming remains a theory and not a law.

you need to take science 101, as your use of terminology is just fucking silly.

Are you honestly claiming that tree rings vary based on whether the temperature was measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit?

No, I'm saying that there's not clear agreement on the temperature reading from tree rings.

Average rainfall and humidity, but not temperature.

One, a theory is the single highest ranking position in science. Two, by your logic, all science should be ignored.

Actually, that would be law is the single highest ranking position in science. Two, by your logic, everything is true because it is based on opinion.

If the globe was cooling, and now it is warming, then global cooling stopped.

Here, yes you are right. Not questioning that it has stopped (for now). It stopped because we are in a warming trend. It will reverse and we'll go back to cooling and thus the warming has stopped.

If humanity caused the warming, then humanity stopped global cooling. All evidence points to the massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere via humanity causing the increase in global temperatures.

You keep saying evidence like it proves something. Evidence, in reality, means nothing if there is any doubt. Since there is doubt, the evidence that we are responsible for Global Warming remains in doubt as does the fact that we stopped global cooling.

Actually, that would be law is the single highest ranking position in science. Two, by your logic, everything is true because it is based on opinion.

You have no understanding of science. Laws are an obsolete term for observations. Take a basic science course and come back. And evidence is not the same as opinion.

you need to take science 101, as your use of terminology is just fucking silly.

You need to go back to 101 yourself as scientific law is higher than a scientific theory. There is still doubt that we are causing global warming. Maybe you should keep that in mind before telling someone to go back to science 101.

You have no understanding of science. Laws are an obsolete term for observations. Take a basic science course and come back. And evidence is not the same as opinion.

Oh I had a basic science course. I passed it with flying colors too.

Actually, that would be law is the single highest ranking position in science.

no, you are wrong. look it up.

Here, yes you are right. Not questioning that it has stopped (for now). It stopped because we are in a warming trend.

name the non-anthropogenic cause of this trend. go on, do it.

we know that humans are putting out enough co2 to account for the increase in atmospheric concentrations (and then some, actually). we also know that increased greenhouse gas concentrations do lead to increased heat retention. these are essentially indisputable, unless we have some really basic physics wrong and are all in some sort of mass delusion about the number of cars and smokestacks we have.

no, you are wrong. look it up.
name the non-anthropogenic cause of this trend. go on, do it.

How about the fact that it is very normal for the Earth to warm up and cool down? I guess you do not know that everything has cycles? Go back to school FS. Maybe you might learn something about cycles.

You need to go back to 101 yourself as scientific law is higher than a scientific theory.

no. it isn't. a law, if it refers to something different from a theory, is just a theory with a good mathematical formula. but really, it is just an obsolete term held over from hundreds of years ago.

How about the fact that it is very normal for the Earth to warm up and cool down?

cooling and warming have fucking causes. either you can name the ones that are responsible for this one and better fit the evidence than the scientifically accepted theory does, or you are a creationist. so make with the testable predictions of causes already.

cooling and warming have fucking causes. either you can name the ones that are responsible for this one and better fit the evidence than the scientifically accepted theory does, or you are a creationist. so make with the testable predictions of causes already.

Here's a tested one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm

Here's a tested one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm

That got torn apart within weeks of being published.

Edit: And it doesn't support you anyways. All it would account for is a cooling in parts of the atmosphere.

cooling and warming have fucking causes. either you can name the ones that are responsible for this one and better fit the evidence than the scientifically accepted theory does, or you are a creationist. so make with the testable predictions of causes already.

Yes I am a creationist and believe that God created the world however, that does not mean jack shit in this debate.

In this debate, one has to look at all the evidence, going as far back as we can (and that includes midevil times), and weigh the evidence with a clear mind. To me, Global Warming is occuring. I am not going to deny that it is for it is an historical fact that it has and will continue to occur. It is also an historical fact that Global Cooling has occured and will occur again. This can not be refuted.

Here's a tested one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm

A very interesting article.

It is also an historical fact that Global Cooling has occured and will occur again. This can not be refuted.

Not on this level.

E: Whoops, meant to quote the part about global warming.

Not on this level.

E: Whoops, meant to quote the part about global warming.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0226a.html

That got torn apart within weeks of being published.

not least because there hasn't actually been a matching trend in cosmic rays, and the timescale of the alleged effect of them is in the millions of years, rather than the tens.

Yes I am a creationist

well that explains your inability to grasp science. do go away.

Oh I had a basic science course. I passed it with flying colors too.

everybody is entitled to an opinion, but what entitles you with "a basic science course" to doubt the science of global warming in opposition the the vast majority of experts?.....

well that explains your inability to grasp science. do go away.

Ah, like your superstitious belief in "good luck" and "bad luck".

And your inability to grasp the concept of probability.

while we are capable of wrongly attributing strings of good or bad luck, that doesn't mean that such things don't exist.

Wow. You believe in "luck".

http://pics.obra.se/RoflMao.jpg

well that explains your inability to grasp science. do go away.

Oh brother. Because I'm a creationist, you automatically believe that I do not believe in science? Your logic skills amaze me :rolleyes: NOT!!!

everybody is entitled to an opinion, but what entitles you with "a basic science course" to doubt the science of global warming in opposition the the vast majority of experts?.....

Maybe because I had more than just a basic science course perhaps? Perhaps I have studied cycles of global proportion?