Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, "global warming/climate change" causes shifts in the jet stream. This would force colder air into areas it would not normaly have been. This would explain the freaky weather.



Climates have always changed!!! It's natural!! Even freakish weather happens from time to time! Good Grief!!

That's why you guys changed your argument from "warming" to "change"! You hedge your bets! You had to do it so that you could always be right, no matter which way the temperature went!! :hehe:

Notice that we aren't even talking about the polar ice caps melting anymore???
 
Climates have always changed!!! It's natural!! Even freakish weather happens from time to time! Good Grief!!

That's why you guys changed your argument from "warming" to "change"! You hedge your bets! You had to do it so that you could always be right, no matter which way the temperature went!! :hehe:

Notice that we aren't even talking about the polar ice caps melting anymore???
OK, look pal. I used the whole "global warming/climate change" line because the people in this thread can't seem to agree on what to call it. I've used it before. Also, I have never changed my arguement. I have never changed my point of view on this matter. I have said time and time again. One of the sides in this arguement has to be wrong, and we will need to follow one side or the other. The problem arises when we finally find out which one is wrong. If the people who say it's real are wrong, and we have followed them, then we'd have a cleaner planet. But, if those who say it's BS are wrong and we've followed them, we'd be screwed.

And I don't believe you ever answered my question. What if you're wrong? What if you are wrong and this whole "global warming/climate change/whatever you wanna call it" thing is real? What then? And remember, part of making a smart arguement is being able understand that you may be wrong.
 
Oh really??


7390_hadcrut.jpg

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.



Basically......nobody knows what's happening!!!:hehe:


The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:

“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”

I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence
. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.

but yeah.....uh....yeah.
 
Look, if Global Warming is going to kill Slim could it speed it up a bit? :up:

jag
 
The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:



but yeah.....uh....yeah.
Exactly, that's like the fifth time that's been posted in this thread alone, and that's about the third time somebody in this thread has pointed out that it's not an erasure of prior warming.

Slim, at least get something new. Your thread started with you posting more or less irrelevant articles that did absolutely nothing to support your point, and now you're just recycling old crap that's been passed around many, many times before.

Hell, it was even posted in another forum on these boards.
 
Climates have always changed!!! It's natural!! Even freakish weather happens from time to time! Good Grief!!

Um, just to make sure that we're all clear on this... You do know that climate and weather are different things, right? The general weather patterns of an area, which include yearly cycles of hot to cold and back again, is a climate. The day-to-day changes are what is called weather. This is why news broadcasts don't have Climate Reports right after Sports.
 
DrNick.jpg


Global Warming's name causes confusion but the extreme climate change phenomenon is real.
 
DrNick.jpg


Global Warming's name causes confusion but the extreme climate change phenomenon is real.

Thanks for the excellent analysis and explanation. Guess I can just stop with the articles and graphs and such. Thanks for saving me all the time and trouble.
 
Thanks for the excellent analysis and explanation. Guess I can just stop with the articles and graphs and such. Thanks for saving me all the time and trouble.

I didn't tell you to stop, global warming - global cooling, call it what you want...
The fact is that we should be aware of our environment and how we affect it. If your articles and graphs say that nothing extreme is happening does that give us a free pass to pollute the hell out of this planet?
 
I didn't tell you to stop, global warming - global cooling, call it what you want...
The fact is that we should be aware of our environment and how we affect it. If your articles and graphs say that nothing extreme is happening does that give us a free pass to pollute the hell out of this planet?

I've answered that question when it was posed the other 10+ times in this thread. No need to do so again.

But nice bait-and-switch argument, though. "Well, if A isn't real, does that mean we should do B?"
 
I wonder how many of the people who complain about the human population polluting the planet actually walk to work, or ride a bike, or take mass transit. Or take trains instead of planes when they travel. Instead of worrying about what "we" should do, focus on what "you" should do. If "you" aren't doing your part, then don't lecture others on doing "their" part.
 
I wonder how many of the people who complain about the human population polluting the planet actually walk to work, or ride a bike, or take mass transit. Or take trains instead of planes when they travel. Instead of worrying about what "we" should do, focus on what "you" should do. If "you" aren't doing your part, then don't lecture others on doing "their" part.

I'm sorry, I didn't YOU did YOUR part and got upset if somebody said what WE could do to better the environment when YOU are already doing YOUR part.
I guess I should just stick to doing MY part and not involve others, after all it's MY planet, not YOURS. Right?
 
I'm sorry, I didn't YOU did YOUR part and got upset if somebody said what WE could do to better the environment when YOU are already doing YOUR part.
I guess I should just stick to doing MY part and not involve others, after all it's MY planet, not YOURS. Right?

That wasn't directed at you, but thanks for making it a personal issue. I'm talking about the doom-and-gloom crowd in general.

How many of the politicians, "scientists," Hollywood crowd, etc. do you think actually practice what they preach? Do you think these people use means of transportation that lessen their "carbon footprint," or do they fly on private jets, ride in convoys of SUVs, and the like?

No, the priests and priestesses of the Church of Global Warming will stand high atop their mountains and shout down to the lowly masses that we must change the way we live our lives. Completely change. But how many people actually practice what they preach?

It's all (in my opinion) a scam to gain power and influence for certain people and groups and to "redistribute" wealth. It's all about power and money. Like I said, IN MY OPINION.
 
I didn't tell you to stop, global warming - global cooling, call it what you want...
The fact is that we should be aware of our environment and how we affect it. If your articles and graphs say that nothing extreme is happening does that give us a free pass to pollute the hell out of this planet?


no! It's you guys that seem to keep "calling it what you want". You don't know anything. You keep guessing. You keep changing the names. You split hairs with climate and weather. It's really funny! A bunch of Chicken Littles, the lot of you.

"The sky is frikkin' falling!" :yay:
 
no! It's you guys that seem to keep "calling it what you want". You don't know anything. You keep guessing. You keep changing the names. You split hairs with climate and weather. It's really funny! A bunch of Chicken Littles, the lot of you.

"The sky is frikkin' falling!" :yay:
Do you know why they change the name? Because biggots and close minded right winged wahoos won't accept it. The Earth is warming period polka dot...hence Global Warming. However, with warming will come cooling, hence Global Climate Change. Either way, it is still bad for us:o Who wants their summers to go from 95 to 105, have sea levels rise, allow tropical diseases to advance northward, massive animal migrations(the pythons started it), severe and eradic weather patterns, and finally the lovely innevitable Ice Age. Guess what was the precursor for every Ice Age this planet has seen? Global warming from an influx of carbon dioxide from volcanoes, atmospheric disturbances, etc...So guess what is going to happen?
 
Do you know why they change the name? Because biggots and close minded right winged wahoos won't accept it. The Earth is warming period polka dot...hence Global Warming. However, with warming will come cooling, hence Global Climate Change. Either way, it is still bad for us:o Who wants their summers to go from 95 to 105, have sea levels rise, allow tropical diseases to advance northward, massive animal migrations(the pythons started it), severe and eradic weather patterns, and finally the lovely innevitable Ice Age. Guess what was the precursor for every Ice Age this planet has seen? Global warming from an influx of carbon dioxide from volcanoes, atmospheric disturbances, etc...So guess what is going to happen?

So I'm a "bigot" and a "close minded [sic] right winged [sic] wahoo" for having different beliefs than you; beliefs that were derived through hours upon hours of studying the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming? Thanks for that.

Definition of bigot: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." This, sir, directly relates to you and your feelings of others who disagree with you belief system.

I base my beliefs simply on the research I have done on the issue, which is plenty. I've also already posted articles and graphs in here showing that CO2 levels increase after warming occurs. It is caused by warming. It is not the cause of warming. Also, this rise in CO2 levels is considered by many to be to the benefit of animal- and plantlife on this planet.

Also, years ago, people were talking about how the earth was going to warm to the point that life could no longer be easily sustained here. Now, however, that we see that the earth is entering a cooling period, the GW crowd has changed the terms and the rules.
 
So I'm a "bigot" and a "close minded [sic] right winged [sic] wahoo" for having different beliefs than you; beliefs that were derived through hours upon hours of studying the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming? Thanks for that.

Definition of bigot: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." This, sir, directly relates to you and your feelings of others who disagree with you belief system.

I base my beliefs simply on the research I have done on the issue

since you side with a rather small precentage of scientists that are against the concept based on your " research " (which means, reading articles that likely gel with your views) you are close minded.
since you ignore all the other evidence against your views based on your beliefs, not facts.

sorry.

and please, try and actually debate next time, the minute you get into a corner you can't get out of, you start going off on tangents.

simply put? you're wrong Tron, very wrong, so wrong infact that you don't grasp the sheer stupidity of your stance.
 
since you side with a rather small precentage of scientists that are against the concept based on your " research " (which means, reading articles that likely gel with your views) you are close minded.
since you ignore all the other evidence against your views based on your beliefs, not facts.

sorry.

and please, try and actually debate next time, the minute you get into a corner you can't get out of, you start going off on tangents.

simply put? you're wrong Tron, very wrong, so wrong infact that you don't grasp the sheer stupidity of your stance.

"Close-minded" is someone who believes what others tell them. By "others" I mean the IPCC/CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/Al Gore.

I read and interpret information. That is actually very "open-minded."

There is "evidence" (as you put it) on both sides of this argument. You say I "ignore all the other evidence." This is incorrect. I check this "evidence" against other "evidence" and I form my own logical conclusion on the matter.

And since you know that the scientists with whom I happen to agree constitute "a rather small precentage [sic] of scientists," I wonder if you could perhaps inform me what this percentage might be? Since you seem to know that it is a rather small number, I hope you can help me out with that.
 
Also, I love that you guys use words like "bigot," "close-minded" and "stupidity" in reference to beliefs that differ from yours. This is obviously the mature, respectable manner in which to conduct a civil debate.
 
"Close-minded" is someone who believes what others tell them. By "others" I mean the IPCC/CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/Al Gore.

I read and interpret information. That is actually very "open-minded."

There is "evidence" (as you put it) on both sides of this argument. You say I "ignore all the other evidence." This is incorrect. I check this "evidence" against other "evidence" and I form my own logical conclusion on the matter. "

:huh:, so even though the majority of the scientific community sides with the existence of global warming and the contribution of man to it, you found evidence that disproves this?
because if you claim this you're lying.
also, if you wish me to take you seriously stop saying stupid things like " listening to Al Gore" it's pathethic I expect it from Celldog, if you wish to join his ranks, go ahead, to me, this has NOTHING to do with Al Gore, this has been an issue in the scientific community long before Gore, to me this has nothing to do with hollywood and everything to do with science.

And since you know that the scientists with whom I happen to agree constitute "a rather small precentage [sic] of scientists," I wonder if you could perhaps inform me what this percentage might be? Since you seem to know that it is a rather small number, I hope you can help me out with that.

oh please, don't switch it up.
you did hours and hours of research right?
tell me then about the overwhelming percentage of scientists saying that global warming isn't real, infact one might be hard pressed to find such info, but hey, you might.
hey, here's the deal.
you show me that the overwhelming percentage of scientists are AGAINST global warming.
and this percentage also speaks of NO impact by the HUMAN race and hey, you know what?

I'll name you king of the internets.
how's that?

I like people that use (sic) when it's not aplicable though, it's downright adorable, it's very (sic) intelligent and (sic) sophisticated.
 
Also, I love that you guys use words like "bigot," "close-minded" and "stupidity" in reference to beliefs that differ from yours. This is obviously the mature, respectable manner in which to conduct a civil debate.

your interaction in this page shows you're far from mature and respectable.
look at you response to the first post of the page, not even aimed at you.
then you turned around and said the poster made it " personal ".
you're kind of hypocrite actually.

and, sorry to tell you, unlike you, this is not a " belief" for me.
I don't believe in the impact of man in the environment.
I KNOW man impacts his environment.

seems simple enough to me.
 
(sic) Denotes an error made by the person you are quoting, such as in the misspelling of a word. This is used to convey to the reader that the person being quoted made the mistake, not the person doing the quoting.

I never stated that an "overwhelming percentage of scientists" say "that global warming isn't real." I was merely challenging you to back up your statement.

The Al Gore comment wasn't directed at you specifically. I merely use him as an illustrative tool since he is the most vocal, most seen, most well-known of the Global Warming believers.

I've addressed the issue of "NO impact by the HUMAN race." I have stated several times that I believe that we are harming the environment and could and should do more to protect, preserve and restore it. My stance on the issue is that while human beings do impact the world in which we live, it is not to the degree that many would have us believe. It is also my belief that these doom-and-gloom scenarios are being pushed to further a specific agenda; that agenda being the consolidation of power and money into the hands of the people, companies and governments leading the Global Warming movement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"