If you read my earlier post it'd explain it, the warm winds that usually blow across north america; getting driven across the atlantic, over iceland to europe aren't blowing either at the same strength or just aren't blowing in that direction at the moment.Phrozenbot wrote:
That explains Europe, but what about us? It's been awfully cold here to say the least. I'd almost welcome some global warming.Varegg wrote:
If you had followed the debate for some years you would have known this Galt ...JohnG@lt wrote:
Please explain how something can get colder, but yet still be considered to be rising in temperature i.e. warming.
Notice the title says "Global Cooling", not "localized to NA and Europe cooling".
When the ocean currents slows, stops, turns or finds new routes that will make some areas colder and some hotter aka the term GW is imo limited to the temperature rise in the oceans and the air just above it ... a temperature rise that will speed up the melting of land based ice like greenland and the south pole.
If the ice on greenland melts to fast it will make a difference regarding the gulf stream that regulates the climate in Europe.
Too bad since 07' polar ice has increased by 26%.Varegg wrote:
If you had followed the debate for some years you would have known this Galt ...JohnG@lt wrote:
Please explain how something can get colder, but yet still be considered to be rising in temperature i.e. warming.Varegg wrote:
This is really quite common knowledge Galt that GW will lead to a colder climate some places and that the kind of extreme weather we see now will intensify ... hurricanes, drought etc etc etc ...
Keep the discussion civil, that goes for the lot of you ...
Notice the title says "Global Cooling", not "localized to NA and Europe cooling".
When the ocean currents slows, stops, turns or finds new routes that will make some areas colder and some hotter aka the term GW is imo limited to the temperature rise in the oceans and the air just above it ... a temperature rise that will speed up the melting of land based ice like greenland and the south pole.
If the ice on greenland melts to fast it will make a difference regarding the gulf stream that regulates the climate in Europe.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
You sure? Seems like the cold is more of a result of artic blasts from Canada for us. Brrrrrrrr!Noobeater wrote:
If you read my earlier post it'd explain it, the warm winds that usually blow across north america; getting driven across the atlantic, over iceland to europe aren't blowing either at the same strength or just aren't blowing in that direction at the moment.Phrozenbot wrote:
That explains Europe, but what about us? It's been awfully cold here to say the least. I'd almost welcome some global warming.Varegg wrote:
If you had followed the debate for some years you would have known this Galt ...
When the ocean currents slows, stops, turns or finds new routes that will make some areas colder and some hotter aka the term GW is imo limited to the temperature rise in the oceans and the air just above it ... a temperature rise that will speed up the melting of land based ice like greenland and the south pole.
If the ice on greenland melts to fast it will make a difference regarding the gulf stream that regulates the climate in Europe.
Fair enough then, how cold would it get normally in your area out of interest?Phrozenbot wrote:
You sure? Seems like the cold is more of a result of artic blasts from Canada for us. Brrrrrrrr!Noobeater wrote:
If you read my earlier post it'd explain it, the warm winds that usually blow across north america; getting driven across the atlantic, over iceland to europe aren't blowing either at the same strength or just aren't blowing in that direction at the moment.Phrozenbot wrote:
That explains Europe, but what about us? It's been awfully cold here to say the least. I'd almost welcome some global warming.
20-30 F average I guess during December and January. Not uncommon for nights to get below zero. Last week it was -15 at 9 in the morning. I thought my fingers were going to fall off. Truck started fine though
Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-01-12 09:59:15)
^^^^^QFTS3v3N wrote:
Mini Ice age.
More like the winters I went through when I was a kid. 3 feet of snow.. Below Freezing Temps..
This winter is like the winters when I grew up. Then we had ten or 20 years of colder winters, snow would fall early as in before Halloween and it would stay until spring. Then we got ten or so years of warmer winters starting around 1995, and now we are sliding back to the colder winters. Its sure looks cyclical to me. Maybe what the real problem here is that people can nolonger relate to a real climate. everyone is used to central air and heat with a constant temperature between 68 and 70F/ 20 and 21C... so whenever the fat lazy retards put down the Wii or XBox and poke their heads out the door, the weather outside is going to be relatively extreme.
Anyway, the GW'ers had 10 or so years to push Kyoto and other crap during the warming trend. Now we are on the cooling trend so that should put an end to that nonsense. But I guess that would be too much to ask because now we are getting the "its not global warming, it's... it's... it's oh think up some bullshit quick... it's climate change.... yah that's the ticket."
GW.... now with new and improved CC labelling... New face... same old BS.
If you want to know what drives the climate... its the same thing that drives the seasons and sure isn't CO2.
And this guy here http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php he's full of it too... according to him science has a uniform voice... science says this and science says that and you're just ignorant of science. Reminds me of the usurption of our voices when BS groups came out and declared that they spoke for family values while pushing moral socialism.
Its all rhetorical BS made up to quack like science. And it beats me why I should be writing about this crap... the Chicago Climate Exchange is going to bring in billions, no make that trillions and while I know its all BS, What I should really do is get in on it, make millions and screw all of y'all. Someone's going to make the money why not me. Hey... I'm serious... anyone out there listening send me a message... Merc for hire
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
To discard science as you do so easily is laughable at best ... there is trends, there is signs and there is science that indicates a climate change that goes outside the normal fluctuations you describe ... but still that is not fact, it's just science ...
I don't claim to be correct but I claim to have an open mind towards issues I don't fully understand ... you claim to have it all sorted out but really can't supply the facts to go with it ...
GW is a term not many scientists have used themselves, more of a political term, in the years I've followed the debate they have been using climate change mostly and it has been the opinion of the masses of scientists that GW or CC will lead to a cooler climate some places, drought in other places and generally way more extreme weather ... and those 3 factors have nothing to do with if the carbon surplus is manmade or not ...
I don't claim to be correct but I claim to have an open mind towards issues I don't fully understand ... you claim to have it all sorted out but really can't supply the facts to go with it ...
GW is a term not many scientists have used themselves, more of a political term, in the years I've followed the debate they have been using climate change mostly and it has been the opinion of the masses of scientists that GW or CC will lead to a cooler climate some places, drought in other places and generally way more extreme weather ... and those 3 factors have nothing to do with if the carbon surplus is manmade or not ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Or it could be that they were just describing a natural cycle of extreme weather patterns that have been prevalent throughout the history of the planet but not fully documented prior to the last 50 year or so...Varegg wrote:
To discard science as you do so easily is laughable at best ... there is trends, there is signs and there is science that indicates a climate change that goes outside the normal fluctuations you describe ... but still that is not fact, it's just science ...
I don't claim to be correct but I claim to have an open mind towards issues I don't fully understand ... you claim to have it all sorted out but really can't supply the facts to go with it ...
GW is a term not many scientists have used themselves, more of a political term, in the years I've followed the debate they have been using climate change mostly and it has been the opinion of the masses of scientists that GW or CC will lead to a cooler climate some places, drought in other places and generally way more extreme weather ... and those 3 factors have nothing to do with if the carbon surplus is manmade or not ...
No one is arguing that the climate doesn't fluctuate. To do so would be ludicrous. What many of us arguing is that factors involving man have a very very small influence on what is nothing more than a normal cycle of warming and cooling that has occurred throughout history. The weather has always had extreme fluctuations. It's nothing new, just new as something that can actually be accurately studied.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-12 11:06:02)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It could be but the data varies to much outside those cycles, and core drilling checking for unusual amounts of carbon in the icecaps takes known vulcanic eruptions into consideration ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
The sample size is just far too small to make accurate predictions and models. Ice core samples are all well and good but they account for less than 1% of the surface of the earth. We all know that local differences can vary wildly within a global sphere, no? Ice core samples drilled in Antarctica are not a reliable source for weather patterns that occurred in North America in the same year, just like me saying the weather in my backyard is colder than normal can be dismissed as a local phenomena.Varegg wrote:
It could be but the data varies to much outside those cycles, and core drilling checking for unusual amounts of carbon in the icecaps takes known vulcanic eruptions into consideration ...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They have core samples from quite a few places besides Antarctica, about every glaciers there is have been visited to gather information ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
yay more snow
lol @ Fox News. I'm not going to get into a debate about whether climate change is occurring or whether it's man-influenced - because I'm not a climatologist and I don't know - but this is hilarious Fox subliminal headline straw-clutching. Soccer tonight was absolutely baltic I must say though and the last three weeks have been hellish.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-12 12:26:14)
Any stats class will tell you to discard the outliers before calculating averages, this winter is an outlier. My car is looking pretty salty though, hopefully it'll get warm enough to wash it on Thursday.
This is what we are dealing with.JohnG@lt wrote:
If CO2 in the atmosphere blocks solar energy from leaving our atmosphere, should it not also reflect the initial solar rays entering our atmosphere back into space? I would think it would have a neutral-to-cooling effect rather than a warming one.
SCIENCEJohnG@lt wrote:
The sample size is just far too small to make accurate predictions and models. Ice core samples are all well and good but they account for less than 1% of the surface of the earth. We all know that local differences can vary wildly within a global sphere, no? Ice core samples drilled in Antarctica are not a reliable source for weather patterns that occurred in North America in the same year, just like me saying the weather in my backyard is colder than normal can be dismissed as a local phenomena.Varegg wrote:
It could be but the data varies to much outside those cycles, and core drilling checking for unusual amounts of carbon in the icecaps takes known vulcanic eruptions into consideration ...
There have been extreme weather patterns over loooooong periods of time. The issue is not that THE EARTH IS GETTING SO HOT THAT WE'RE ALL GOING TO BURN TO DEATH. The problem is in the relatively short term the climate will change much faster than normal, not giving us enough time to adapt by doing things like getting everyone off the coasts. Maybe in the long term temperatures do hit record highs, maybe our atmosphere is irreparably damaged. It's impossible for us to tell. On the other hand it's incredibly stupid of us not to recognize that there is a significant chance of that happening, by looking at previous trends and reasonable scientific theory.JohnG@lt wrote:
Or it could be that they were just describing a natural cycle of extreme weather patterns that have been prevalent throughout the history of the planet but not fully documented prior to the last 50 year or so...
No one is arguing that the climate doesn't fluctuate. To do so would be ludicrous. What many of us arguing is that factors involving man have a very very small influence on what is nothing more than a normal cycle of warming and cooling that has occurred throughout history. The weather has always had extreme fluctuations. It's nothing new, just new as something that can actually be accurately studied.
Because scientists put thermometers indoors.Diesel_dyk wrote:
everyone is used to central air and heat with a constant temperature between 68 and 70F/ 20 and 21C... so whenever the fat lazy retards put down the Wii or XBox and poke their heads out the door, the weather outside is going to be relatively extreme.
You sat there and talked about how much bullshit global warming is and your only hypothesis to the contrary was "people sit inside a lot".
Quoting the Daily Mail is like quoting the National Enquirer.DBBrinson1 wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
That would explain the unusually warm temperatures other places wouldn't it?
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has the effect of increasing the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.
2. Humanity has taken an lots of carbon that wasn't in the atmospheric carbon cycle, and put it into it.
Unless 1. or 2. can be shown to be false, the only real question left is how much hotter have we made it?
So far climate change skepticts have remained remarkably quiet on this issue.....
2. Humanity has taken an lots of carbon that wasn't in the atmospheric carbon cycle, and put it into it.
Unless 1. or 2. can be shown to be false, the only real question left is how much hotter have we made it?
So far climate change skepticts have remained remarkably quiet on this issue.....
I find it amusing that the people who don't 'believe' in global warming trust everything else science tells us.
I also find it amusing that it only seems to be conservatives that disagree with it.
I also find it amusing that it only seems to be conservatives that disagree with it.
Meh, I was referring to how gullible people can be and how a lazy person relates more with air conditioning and an x-box than with the environment. It takes absolutely zero effort to agree with the pro-GW people because its all prepackaged like a really bad frozen dinner. You eat it and if you ignore the ingredients list then everything is great.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because scientists put thermometers indoors.Diesel_dyk wrote:
everyone is used to central air and heat with a constant temperature between 68 and 70F/ 20 and 21C... so whenever the fat lazy retards put down the Wii or XBox and poke their heads out the door, the weather outside is going to be relatively extreme.
You sat there and talked about how much bullshit global warming is and your only hypothesis to the contrary was "people sit inside a lot".
And like I said in the post, it obvious that people are not willing to step back and look at what is going on, so why should I care. It should give you pause that we haven't really heard anything from the stock market industry, no yahs and no nehs. I wonder why that is? It's because GW is going to become the new asset bubble... and unlike previous asset bubbles this one is going to be made entirely out of thin hot air, and yes some of that will be CO2 emissions. So, I say why fight it, I can see this one coming from miles away and I might as well ride this asset bubble and make a bundle of money since everyone seems to be primed to just hand it over to these guys.
Surely it takes even less effort to agree with the 'everything is fine, nothing humanity does effects anything, just do what you want and ignore any possible consequences'-people.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Meh, I was referring to how gullible people can be and how a lazy person relates more with air conditioning and an x-box than with the environment. It takes absolutely zero effort to agree with the pro-GW people because its all prepackaged like a really bad frozen dinner. You eat it and if you ignore the ingredients list then everything is great.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because scientists put thermometers indoors.Diesel_dyk wrote:
everyone is used to central air and heat with a constant temperature between 68 and 70F/ 20 and 21C... so whenever the fat lazy retards put down the Wii or XBox and poke their heads out the door, the weather outside is going to be relatively extreme.
You sat there and talked about how much bullshit global warming is and your only hypothesis to the contrary was "people sit inside a lot".
That's a less convenient truth though. See what I did there?PureFodder wrote:
Surely it takes even less effort to agree with the 'everything is fine, nothing humanity does effects anything, just do what you want and ignore any possible consequences'-people.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Meh, I was referring to how gullible people can be and how a lazy person relates more with air conditioning and an x-box than with the environment. It takes absolutely zero effort to agree with the pro-GW people because its all prepackaged like a really bad frozen dinner. You eat it and if you ignore the ingredients list then everything is great.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because scientists put thermometers indoors.
You sat there and talked about how much bullshit global warming is and your only hypothesis to the contrary was "people sit inside a lot".
I like how people want to discuss the "science" and ignore how the science is being used to implement policy. Its like discussing the manhatten project while ignoring fat man and little boy and hiroshima.PureFodder wrote:
Surely it takes even less effort to agree with the 'everything is fine, nothing humanity does effects anything, just do what you want and ignore any possible consequences'-people.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Meh, I was referring to how gullible people can be and how a lazy person relates more with air conditioning and an x-box than with the environment. It takes absolutely zero effort to agree with the pro-GW people because its all prepackaged like a really bad frozen dinner. You eat it and if you ignore the ingredients list then everything is great.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because scientists put thermometers indoors.
You sat there and talked about how much bullshit global warming is and your only hypothesis to the contrary was "people sit inside a lot".
IMO the entire GW debate IS the implementation of new governmental revenue streams and the creation of carbon markets. The rest of the debate deflects analysis of those issues. And what is absent from the debate is any discussion on alternatives to more taxes and the creation of a new energy asset bubble all of which will result in artificially higher energy costs that you and I will pay for. There is absolutely zero debate on those issues. That's the reality of the GW science debate, its a red herring.
People are lazy and are being fed a prepackaged debate based on the "science" and we are being told to take their solutions as a given. So, now I've got figure out a way to generate a profit on all this gullibility... any ideas?
Diesel, you seem to have grown a lot more paranoid over the last year.
I've already got a forest picked out in New Hampshire that I'm going to purchase and not harvest so I can make money selling carbon credits while doing nothing. It's going to be the new government welfare, get it while it's hot!Diesel_dyk wrote:
I like how people want to discuss the "science" and ignore how the science is being used to implement policy. Its like discussing the manhatten project while ignoring fat man and little boy and hiroshima.PureFodder wrote:
Surely it takes even less effort to agree with the 'everything is fine, nothing humanity does effects anything, just do what you want and ignore any possible consequences'-people.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Meh, I was referring to how gullible people can be and how a lazy person relates more with air conditioning and an x-box than with the environment. It takes absolutely zero effort to agree with the pro-GW people because its all prepackaged like a really bad frozen dinner. You eat it and if you ignore the ingredients list then everything is great.
IMO the entire GW debate IS the implementation of new governmental revenue streams and the creation of carbon markets. The rest of the debate deflects analysis of those issues. And what is absent from the debate is any discussion on alternatives to more taxes and the creation of a new energy asset bubble all of which will result in artificially higher energy costs that you and I will pay for. There is absolutely zero debate on those issues. That's the reality of the GW science debate, its a red herring.
People are lazy and are being fed a prepackaged debate based on the "science" and we are being told to take their solutions as a given. So, now I've got figure out a way to generate a profit on all this gullibility... any ideas?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat