Oops on global warming

[UncleBuck]

Then add in the fact here has been NO GLOBAL WARMING since 1995, none... documented... admitted by even the loons.

you may want to check the temperature record. you only have it 100% completely backwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

take a look and notice that each of the last 10 years, each and every one, has been among the hottest ever recorded.

derp dee der.

you're funny.

 

[UncleBuck]

I've seen points to global warming being tied to human activity. Quite the opposite, it seem obvious that it is tied to the fluctuating activity of that GIANT FIREBALL IN THE SKY, you know the one that is responsible for heating this planet. It may not be convenient for the eco-loons but solar activity MIRRORS global temperature changes with such precision, it's amazing anyone even needs to make the argument.

again, you only have it 100% wrong. you could not be more wrong if you tried. in fact, it appears to me like you ARE trying to be wrong.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/10/nasa-hottest-year-solar-minimum/

there you go. solar irradiance is at a minimum, yet still the hottest year on record last year.

derp dee der.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Unless you have 4 billion years of records your record means nothing.

 

[UncleBuck]

Unless you have 4 billion years of records your record means nothing.

we have several million/billion in antarctica and greenland.

but your point is a false one. humans have not been around for 4 billion years. we depend on a very specific niche in the climate to exist.

wait...did you even have a point?

 

[NoDrama]

Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).*


1.12F

 

[JoSixChip]

This global warming stuff has me concerned, it's like a 2 degree average change over 100 years. If you project that out over the next 1,000 years that's like a 20 degree average temperature increase. That got me thinking that maybe it was being caused by something else, like the earth's rotation. So as of last December I have been measuring the length of a day and comparing that with the length of nights. What I have found over the last four months is quite startling, the days are getting longer and the nights are getting shorter. I can definitively say that by the end of the next decade we will be in constant daylight. My measurements are completely accurate so my conclusion must be as well, right?

 

[MrDank007]

Who here is going to spearhead the "Noah" program? That is the one where we allocate funds to build an ark for the impending second great flood due to man made global warming.

 

[UncleBuck]

yes, youre brilliant.....keep talking....

nice rebuttl, bro.

Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).*


1.12F

OMG WERE ALL DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!

yes, it is only a small change. and, the climate is ALWAYS changing.

but why is it changing so rapidly all of a sudden in the direction it is not supposed to?

This global warming stuff has me concerned, it's like a 2 degree average change over 100 years. If you project that out over the next 1,000 years that's like a 20 degree average temperature increase. That got me thinking that maybe it was being caused by something else, like the earth's rotation. So as of last December I have been measuring the length of a day and comparing that with the length of nights. What I have found over the last four months is quite startling, the days are getting longer and the nights are getting shorter. I can definitively say that by the end of the next decade we will be in constant daylight. My measurements are completely accurate so my conclusion must be as well, right?

nice rebuttal, bro. reminds me of the people who say "it was 20 degrees below average today, so there is no possible way humans can effect their environment".

Who here is going to spearhead the "Noah" program? That is the one where we allocate funds to build an ark for the impending second great flood due to man made global warming.

not quite time for the "noah" program yet (that would be funnier of you thought of a hilarious acronym), however, scientists have started figuring out ways to deal with the effects of manmade climate change, rather than combat climate change itself.

they must be pretty committed to the lie, huh?

 

[JoSixChip]

your data set is lacking.

Interesting, that is my argument against globul warming.

What's more interesting is when I was in school in the late 70s, they told us man was causing cooling that would result in a ice age. That was the conclusion of 10s of thousands of scientist back then. Were they right then or now?

 

[MrDank007]

The whole deal in copenhagen was ridiculous. "The Plan" the Rich (I guess we are rich despite this recession)countries were to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor nations reduce their carbon emissions. They were also to pay out $30 billion from next year through 2012. The goal being that nations should try to keep the global temperature increase before industrialization “below 2 degrees"????

We are talking about speculation and "group" sentiment worth billions...We are talking about the "believing scientist" opinions. This "Treaty” was to give the authority to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all nations that sign it. This "Constitution" said that it took precedence over our Constitution, and you can’t resign from the "treaty" unless you get agreement from all the other state parties. And then they wanted to mandate a costly cap and trade energy tax system in the name of saving the world? The potential for money to evaporate will be even less productive than the bailouts... all at America's expense.

It's all based on the idea that we are melting, but if we can give up freedom and cash, they can undo all the damage and reverse the course of the Earth like superman. Global warming is now called climate change and we are worried about wild swings both up and down. In the 70's, they said were in for an ice age.

 

[UncleBuck]

Interesting, that is my argument against globul warming.

What's more interesting is when I was in school in the late 70s, they told us man was causing cooling that would result in a ice age. That was the conclusion of 10s of thousands of scientist back then. Were they right then or now?

i don't care how many scientists thought this or that. were they the majority who thought it would cool? nope. did the majority of scientists predict warming? yep. and how sound were there conclusions?

and if you really, truly, in your heart of hearts believe they were correct, why have we not seen cooling? why have we seen the hottest decade on record instead?

 

[JoSixChip]

The whole deal in copenhagen was ridiculous. "The Plan" the Rich (I guess we are rich despite this recession)countries were to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor nations reduce their carbon emissions. They were also to pay out $30 billion from next year through 2012. The goal being that nations should try to keep the global temperature increase before industrialization “below 2 degrees"????

We are talking about speculation and "group" sentiment worth billions...We are talking about the "believing scientist" opinions. This "Treaty” was to give the authority to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all nations that sign it. This "Constitution" said that it took precedence over our Constitution, and you can’t resign from the "treaty" unless you get agreement from all the other state parties. And then they wanted to mandate a costly cap and trade energy tax system in the name of saving the world? The potential for money to evaporate will be even less productive than the bailouts... all at America's expense.

It's all based on the idea that we are melting, but if we can give up freedom and cash, they can undo all the damage and reverse the course of the Earth like superman. Global warming is now called climate change and we are worried about wild swings both up and down. In the 70's, they said were in for an ice age.

Why is the divide right down conservative/progressive lines? Is it because conservatives want children and uncle bucks grandmother to die?

 

[MrDank007]

A prime example was the screwed up model fiasco. The Hadley Center’s Hockey stick model included the “fudge factor”. As Climategate leaked out, a group of scientists in New Zealand, who hadn’t “thrown out the raw data" used it and it has resulted in a graph that appears relatively flat.

So, what about the consensus of the dissenting scientist? Are they less signifigant than the other side? Are there less of them? Or do they just get less press? These scientist are bought by big oil right? However, "global warming" scientist are pure of heart and not politically influenced. Climategate proved that is 100% not possible. Sure, they don't care about grants, political pressure, ect.

And therein lies the contradiction...one set of scientist is ethical and the other is not. How do you make the distinction? As a result of "global warming" distinctions, $100 Billions are up for grab and a large politcal shift in power will occur. Power can't influence scientist? I wonder how nuclear bombs and bio-weapons came into existence.

Pollution cuts and the best way to monitor those actions remained unresolved though! (Still we should get the money committed, right). It's a scam...panic more freedom and money away.

 

[UncleBuck]

The whole deal in copenhagen was ridiculous. "The Plan" the Rich (I guess we are rich despite this recession)countries were to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor nations reduce their carbon emissions. They were also to pay out $30 billion from next year through 2012. The goal being that nations should try to keep the global temperature increase before industrialization “below 2 degrees"????

We are talking about speculation and "group" sentiment worth billions...We are talking about the "believing scientist" opinions. This "Treaty” was to give the authority to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all nations that sign it. This "Constitution" said that it took precedence over our Constitution, and you can’t resign from the "treaty" unless you get agreement from all the other state parties. And then they wanted to mandate a costly cap and trade energy tax system in the name of saving the world? The potential for money to evaporate will be even less productive than the bailouts... all at America's expense.

It's all based on the idea that we are melting, but if we can give up freedom and cash, they can undo all the damage and reverse the course of the Earth like superman. Global warming is now called climate change and we are worried about wild swings both up and down. In the 70's, they said were in for an ice age.

your post seems to focus more on the issues behind climate change, rather than the thesis or research behind man made climate change.

i would actually agree with you, we don't need cap and trade (as good an idea as it may be) or international treaties. we need to exploit the idea of cheap, renewable, sustainable energy and profit from it (oil won't last forever).

no matter your position on man made climate change, you need to concede the need to move away from finite (and often foreign) oil and towards sustainable energy.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why is the divide right down conservative/progressive lines? Is it because conservatives want children and uncle bucks grandmother to die?

it is not. i can find you as many conservative conservationists as you want or as many progressive skeptics as you want.

if there is any divide, it is between those who refuse to recognize science or the finite nature of oil, and those who have an intelligence quotient that is higher than two standard deviations below average on a WASI-IV.

 

[MrDank007]

your post seems to focus more on the issues behind climate change, rather than the thesis or research behind man made climate change.

i would actually agree with you, we don't need cap and trade (as good an idea as it may be) or international treaties. we need to exploit the idea of cheap, renewable, sustainable energy and profit from it (oil won't last forever).

no matter your position on man made climate change, you need to concede the need to move away from finite (and often foreign) oil and towards sustainable energy.

Follow the money

 

[UncleBuck]

A prime example was the screwed up model fiasco. The Hadley Center’s Hockey stick model included the “fudge factor”. As Climategate leaked out, a group of scientists in New Zealand, who hadn’t “thrown out the raw data" used it and it has resulted in a graph that appears relatively flat.

So, what about the consensus of the dissenting scientist? Are they less signifigant than the other side? Are there less of them? Or do they just get less press? These scientist are bought by big oil right? However, "global warming" scientist are pure of heart and not politically influenced. Climategate proved that is 100% not possible. Sure, they don't care about grants, political pressure, ect.

And therein lies the contradiction...one set of scientist is ethical and the other is not. How do you make the distinction? As a result of "global warming" distinctions, $100 Billions are up for grab and a large politcal shift in power will occur. Power can't influence scientist? I wonder how nuclear bombs and bio-weapons came into existence.

Pollution cuts and the best way to monitor those actions remained unresolved though! (Still we should get the money committed, right). It's a scam...panic more freedom and money away.

are you still bringing up 'climategate'? they were exonerated, ya know.

as far as the intentions of climatologists, let's look at the most prominent ones advocating that climate change is not at least partially man made. they are bought and paid for by oil companies, just the same way scientists who contested the danger of cigarettes decades ago.

there is vast agreement between scientists that yes, the climate is changing at an accelerated rate, and that yes, man is behind it to at least some degree.

 

[JoSixChip]

I would say that every conservative I know is a environmentalist, you can tell by the way they act and live. I also know a lot of liberals who claim to be environmentalist and demand that we change our way of life to protect the environment. But I would sugest you watch their actions rather then listen to their reteric. For example, take a look at what the capital in Wisconsin looked like after the Union protest and compaire that with the grounds after a TEA Party event.

 

[JoSixChip]

are you still bringing up 'climategate'? they were exonerated, ya know.

as far as the intentions of climatologists, let's look at the most prominent ones advocating that climate change is not at least partially man made. they are bought and paid for by oil companies, just the same way scientists who contested the danger of cigarettes decades ago.

there is vast agreement between scientists that yes, the climate is changing at an accelerated rate, and that yes, man is behind it to at least some degree.

??? Please provide link where "they were exonerated"

 

[jeff f]

i don't care how many scientists thought this or that. were they the majority who thought it would cool? nope. did the majority of scientists predict warming? yep. and how sound were there conclusions?

and if you really, truly, in your heart of hearts believe they were correct, why have we not seen cooling? why have we seen the hottest decade on record instead?

wow, nice emotion...