91% Of Americans Aren’t Worried About Global Warming [Archive] - Debate Policy

Gunny

02-02-2016, 10:01 AM

Good, Americans are catching onto this scam.

-----

As Iowans prepare to vote for presidential candidates, a new poll has surfaced showing once again the vast majority of Americans don’t rank global warming as the most serious issue facing the country.

A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries found only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern. Only Saudi Arabians were less concerned about global warming at 5.7 percent. The biggest concern for Americans was global terrorism — 28 percent of Americans polled listed this as their top issue.

Despite a big PR push by President Barack Obama to tout his administration’s global warming agenda, most Americans have been unconvinced it’s the country’s most pressing issue. A Fox News poll from November found only 3 percent of Americans list global warming as their top concern.

The Fox poll came out just before Obama met other world leaders in Paris to kick off another round of negotiations for an international treaty to cut carbon dioxide emissions. After weeks of haggling, United Nations delegates agreed to non-binding emissions cuts.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/poll-91-of-americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/

Well, you kinda got to think about it. I live in the damned desert. Anyone want to explain this f-ing snow in my yard? It ain't warm, I can tell you that.

jimnyc

02-02-2016, 10:06 AM

Well, you kinda got to think about it. I live in the damned desert. Anyone want to explain this f-ing snow in my yard? It ain't warm, I can tell you that.

I gotta love it when so many global warming events are 86'd because of snowstorms!

Perianne

02-02-2016, 10:10 AM

NightTrain

02-02-2016, 10:16 AM

That is somewhat heartening news... but my concern is with the percentage of Americans that believe that we are influencing normal global weather cycles of warming and cooling.

I always enjoy asking a Global Warming knucklehead this question : Was it Chevy Suburbans that brought the earth out of the last dozen ice ages?

The answers invariably are worth a LOL or possibly even a ROFL. At the very least a polite Haha.

Jeff

02-02-2016, 10:34 AM

Well, you kinda got to think about it. I live in the damned desert. Anyone want to explain this f-ing snow in my yard? It ain't warm, I can tell you that.

:lol::lol::lol:

Enjoy the snow Gunny. :laugh:

pete311

02-02-2016, 10:46 AM

my concern is with the percentage of Americans that believe that we are influencing normal global weather cycles of warming and cooling.

What makes you think we are incapable of this?

I always enjoy asking a Global Warming knucklehead this question : Was it Chevy Suburbans that brought the earth out of the last dozen ice ages?

I hope this silly joke isn't what you base your opinion on.

Good, Americans are catching onto this scam.

Why do you think it's a scam?

jimnyc

02-02-2016, 10:50 AM

Why do you think it's a scam?

-Finding out that studies were faked/altered
-The fact that the earths temperatures have been changing for like a kabillion years
-in just a short time, threats about things melting an all, the opposite happened. It's called earth, and changes in some places, that's what it does

And some folks want to collect tons and tons and tons of money, and yet that's all they really do, is collect money. And then the leaders of some of these groups leave more of a "carbon footprint" than likely their entire groups.

Gunny

02-02-2016, 10:53 AM

What makes you think we are incapable of this?

I hope this silly joke isn't what you base your opinion on.

Why do you think it's a scam?

Okay, question .. what makes you think that man is capable of altering a global climate change? They've been around throughout the history of Earth. We exist in a universe that determines our climate. Yet you think some eggheads looking for an excuse to get them paid can dream up some alternate reality?

I don't recall anyone going whacky back in the 1800s when we had a global cooling. But now we can fix it?

Man's arrogance.

pete311

02-02-2016, 01:28 PM

-Finding out that studies were faked/altered

- Finding out that studies were faked/altered
-The fact that the earths temperatures have been changing for like a kabillion years
-in just a short time, threats about things melting an all, the opposite happened. It's called earth, and changes in some places, that's what it does

And some folks want to collect tons and tons and tons of money, and yet that's all they really do, is collect money. And then the leaders of some of these groups leave more of a "carbon footprint" than likely their entire groups.

- The corrupt studies from several years ago were shameful, but there are but a tiny percent. Do you agree smoking causes cancer? Do you know how many corrupt studies were done by the tobacco industry?
- The earth's climate has changed over it's lifetime yes, and?
- Nearly every glacier is receding. I've personally been to a few and had to walk a couple miles extra to get to the base than people even 10 years ago. Here is the arctic ice review for 2015 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Honestly I don't know what part is controversial for you? C02 is a greenhouse gas. Over the past 100 years it's spiked and all signs are to modern industry.

Of course there is money in climate change. But this is no different than anything else. Why make it a critical point for climate change?

Okay, question .. what makes you think that man is capable of altering a global climate change? They've been around throughout the history of Earth. We exist in a universe that determines our climate. Yet you think some eggheads looking for an excuse to get them paid can dream up some alternate reality?

I don't recall anyone going whacky back in the 1800s when we had a global cooling. But now we can fix it?

Man's arrogance.

The industrial revolution changed everything. Cavemen don't pump metric tons of pollutants into the sky. I still don't get how you guys live in the modern world but are anti-science. Seems very hypocritical.

This is a pretty good recent article with charts
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/feb/02/climate-change-in-charts-from-record-global-temperatures-to-science-denial

Gunny

02-02-2016, 01:57 PM

- The corrupt studies from several years ago were shameful, but there are but a tiny percent. Do you agree smoking causes cancer? Do you know how many corrupt studies were done by the tobacco industry?
- The earth's climate has changed over it's lifetime yes, and?
- Nearly every glacier is receding. I've personally been to a few and had to walk a couple miles extra to get to the base than people even 10 years ago. Here is the arctic ice review for 2015 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Honestly I don't know what part is controversial for you? C02 is a greenhouse gas. Over the past 100 years it's spiked and all signs are to modern industry.

Of course there is money in climate change. But this is no different than anything else. Why make it a critical point for climate change?

The industrial revolution changed everything. Cavemen don't pump metric tons of pollutants into the sky. I still don't get how you guys live in the modern world but are anti-science. Seems very hypocritical.

This is a pretty good recent article with charts
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/feb/02/climate-change-in-charts-from-record-global-temperatures-to-science-denial

Let's try this one again before I go get my new weight bench. Do you really think we can destroy a planet in the universe? I will grant you the industrial revolution probably hasn't helped. At the same time, It sure as Hell ain't defining our lives and a 1.3 percent raise in temperature ain't shit. Lot's of people want to live on fear and call everything this or that, but what exactly do you call this besides fearmongering?

I'm all for responsible use of the environment/our resources. I'm NOT about making people fear to get out of bed. The lamest I ever hear is what about our grandchildren. What about them? How about if we use the resources we have now and they can figure out what the f*ck to do just like we had to? Or our forefathers had to? I'd like to live my life in my time.

Y'all want to fix sh*t that hasn't even happened and you can't prove it ever will.

PixieStix

02-02-2016, 02:04 PM

I am worried about a lot of things, but global warming is not one of them.

I one time asked a lady at work what her biggest worry was in life. She responded "global warming". I thought at first she was joking. But she was dead serious.

Democrats, lol.

I am more worried about global-ISM. Protecting the environment is more important to those radicals than protecting the world from the hoards of "refugees" that are coming to destroy our civilization

pete311

02-02-2016, 02:11 PM

Let's try this one again before I go get my new weight bench. Do you really think we can destroy a planet in the universe? I will grant you the industrial revolution probably hasn't helped. At the same time, It sure as Hell ain't defining our lives and a 1.3 percent raise in temperature ain't shit. Lot's of people want to live on fear and call everything this or that, but what exactly do you call this besides fearmongering?

I'm all for responsible use of the environment/our resources. I'm NOT about making people fear to get out of bed. The lamest I ever hear is what about our grandchildren. What about them? How about if we use the resources we have now and they can figure out what the f*ck to do just like we had to? Or our forefathers had to? I'd like to live my life in my time.

Y'all want to fix sh*t that hasn't even happened and you can't prove it ever will.

Destroy a planet? Not yet, but we can make it difficult to live on. I don't know how you can think we are able to abuse the planet and not have any consequences.

I believe the limit is 2 degrees, past that and balances start to unravel.

The idea is to not let the problems happen in the first places. You don't drive reckless on the road just because you can't prove I won't crash.

namvet

02-02-2016, 02:13 PM

got some friend in western CO that are bitchin' about 12" of global warming

Gunny

02-02-2016, 02:15 PM

got some friend in western CO that are bitchin' about 12" of global warming

I ain't got to go that far. Guess how far it is from Northern NM to Colorado? My global warming has frozen f-ing toes.

Perianne

02-02-2016, 02:19 PM

got some friend in western CO that are bitchin' about 12" of global warming

I have never had 12 inches, but I sure did enjoy 10 inches one time. :)

4,000th post.

namvet

02-02-2016, 02:23 PM

I ain't got to go that far. Guess how far it is from Northern NM to Colorado? My global warming has frozen f-ing toes.

being from there you never heard of wearing a 2nd pair a socks. try it you'll luv it

pete311

02-02-2016, 02:23 PM

I ain't got to go that far. Guess how far it is from Northern NM to Colorado? My global warming has frozen f-ing toes.

The key word here is global. Not local.

namvet

02-02-2016, 02:31 PM

I have never had 12 inches, but I sure did enjoy 10 inches one time. :)

4,000th post.

and you kid us not :laugh:

Gunny

02-02-2016, 03:07 PM

The key word here is global. Not local.

Sure, but think about what you're say. Man has the power to alter the universe? I'd say that's stretching it.

I will also point out that it is very much local. We want to suffer and do without but y'all need to take a look at SE Asia. It doesn't matter much what we do when no one else gives a crap.

pete311

02-02-2016, 03:10 PM

Sure, but think about what you're say. Man has the power to alter the universe? I'd say that's stretching it.

I will also point out that it is very much local. We want to suffer and do without but y'all need to take a look at SE Asia. It doesn't matter much what we do when no one else gives a crap.

I don't think any global warming research is talking about altering the universe. No it's not local, it's global averages. When their shorelines are flooded like New Orleans they will.

Gunny

02-02-2016, 03:23 PM

I don't think any global warming research is talking about altering the universe. No it's not local, it's global averages. When their shorelines are flooded like New Orleans they will.

See, I don't think so. New Orleans is below sea level.. Should be somewhat of a clue there, don't you think?

The argument is that we, tiny little insects in the big picture, can actually alter the universe. The Earth has gone through cyclical climate changes as far back as anyone can remember. This isn't new. It's just another. Maybe Man ought to quit trying to play God? Just deal with what we have to. This is a contrived bunch of BS to me.

pete311

02-02-2016, 03:28 PM

See, I don't think so. New Orleans is below sea level.. Should be somewhat of a clue there, don't you think?

The argument is that we, tiny little insects in the big picture, can actually alter the universe. The Earth has gone through cyclical climate changes as far back as anyone can remember. This isn't new. It's just another. Maybe Man ought to quit trying to play God? Just deal with what we have to. This is a contrived bunch of BS to me.

New Orleans has billions of dollars of technology keeping the water out. Do you not remember when that failed... Katrina...

Why do you keep saying universe? Yes the earth does go naturally through changes. What makes you think this is a natural change? How is being good stewards of the earth playing God? Is your house a complete mess? Don't clean it, just deal with it messy, stop playing God. See how that sounds?

Gunny

02-02-2016, 03:47 PM

New Orleans has billions of dollars of technology keeping the water out. Do you not remember when that failed... Katrina...

Why do you keep saying universe? Yes the earth does go naturally through changes. What makes you think this is a natural change? How is being good stewards of the earth playing God? Is your house a complete mess? Don't clean it, just deal with it messy, stop playing God. See how that sounds?

Oh you mean that hurricane that dropped half a million people in my city? Yeah, I kind of remember it. Remember spending all day at Ft Sam one weekend handing out water and meals, as a matter of fact.

So what makes you think this is NOT a natural change? I haven't seen any evidence. Just fearmongering based on conjecture.

Now if you want to talk Himacanes, go for it. I've only lived through 5 of them. We lived in Key West when Camille ran over us like we weren't there on it's way to whacking New Orleans. It doesn't matter what the engineering is. You choose to live below sea level in hurricane alley, guess what? Bail or learn to swim. Or maybe Sean Penn will save you. :rolleyes:

I KNOW what failed. More man-made crap trying to alter nature. Seems to be a theme, don't it?

namvet

02-02-2016, 03:48 PM

Sure, but think about what you're say. Man has the power to alter the universe? I'd say that's stretching it.

I will also point out that it is very much local. We want to suffer and do without but y'all need to take a look at SE Asia. It doesn't matter much what we do when no one else gives a crap.

SE Asia is a different kind a heat. hotter N fresh fucked fox in a Forrest fire

Gunny

02-02-2016, 03:51 PM

SE Asia is a different kind a heat. hotter N fresh fucked fox in a Forrest fire

Don't forget those damned mosquitoes that are big as freakin' pigeons. Crap, I've had my knee drained with a smaller f-ing needle than those f*ckers have.

pete311

02-02-2016, 03:52 PM

So what makes you think this is NOT a natural change?

It's pretty convincing if you actually take the time to research it
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/feb/02/climate-change-in-charts-from-record-global-temperatures-to-science-denial

Gunny

02-02-2016, 04:07 PM

It's pretty convincing if you actually take the time to research it
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/feb/02/climate-change-in-charts-from-record-global-temperatures-to-science-denial

I actually have and I'm not convinced. So the temperature has changed. Been doing that since whenever. The problem here is that people like you want to think you can control crap you can't. And you refuse to accept the facts and deal with them. You want to make it be something you can tell others how to fix and actually believe you can.

Why is it that everything we do in this life has to cost US? Always a blame game.

pete311

02-02-2016, 04:15 PM

And you refuse to accept the facts and deal with them.

Oh the hypocrisy if you actually read that article.

You want to make it be something you can tell others how to fix and actually believe you can.

So it's your opinion that if we removed all human CO2 sources that CO2 would continue to rise?

Why is it that everything we do in this life has to cost US? Always a blame game.

Want some cheese with that whine? This is what happens when you cut the rainforest down and build 30 stories coal smoke stacks all over the world.

Gunny

02-02-2016, 04:24 PM

Oh the hypocrisy if you actually read that article.

So it's your opinion that if we removed all human CO2 sources that CO2 would continue to rise?

Want some cheese with that whine? This is what happens when you cut the rainforest down and build 30 stories coal smoke stacks all over the world.

There's no hypocrisy on my part. I haven't manufactured something to scare the gullible.

And what cheese with what wine? I'm not wining about shit. Matter of fact, you are. I was trying to have a decent conversation.

So let's get you in order. You did not ONCE see nor read nor hear me say I believed in the irresponsible misuse of our resources. I'm totally against that. How about if we fix those actually happening misuses of our resources instead of dreaming some up? I'll be right in line behind you. I hate waste. I also hate fraud.

namvet

02-02-2016, 04:56 PM

Don't forget those damned mosquitoes that are big as freakin' pigeons. Crap, I've had my knee drained with a smaller f-ing needle than those f*ckers have.

mosquitoes so big they can stand flat footed and corn hole a turkey :laugh: big as sanitation trucks

glockmail

02-02-2016, 05:33 PM

pete311

02-03-2016, 01:18 AM

Manipulate data much?
Please enlighten me

Gunny

02-03-2016, 06:16 AM

Please enlighten me

Point is, we don't agree. I can live with it. You want to stir up some shit with glock, I'll just eat some popcorn. He'll fight with the damned air. I'm actually tired of everyone wanting to fight all the time. It isn't because I can't. It's because I just don't want to anymore. Anyone on this board can tell you I'm a SOB when my wheels hit ground.

If you think you're running a good life and want to screw with me and glock at the same time, you just go for it. Sad thing is you can actually make a good argument even if I don't agree. Maybe you should put more effort into that than just trying to piss people off.

pete311

02-03-2016, 09:02 AM

Maybe you should put more effort into that than just trying to piss people off.

He makes a pretty bold statement, I just want him to explain where he sees the manipulation.

glockmail

02-03-2016, 09:54 AM

NightTrain

02-03-2016, 10:08 AM

Pete, you do know that our CO2 emissions total 1/3 of 1% of a gas that comprises 0.04 of our atmosphere? Do you know what a miniscule number that is in the grand scheme of things?

So, while you and your kind figure out if we're headed to either an Ice Age or the Inferno Age - and you nutjobs can't even agree on that - let's take a look at the overall picture of Earth's temperature historically :

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8345&stc=1

Yup. That's 500 million years of Climate Change! Take a gander at those peaks and valleys - they are quite remarkable and extreme, wouldn't you allow?

Given that the Earth is quite literally all over the map naturally with regard to temperature - and this was all done without those evil corporate-y Oil Companies and Chevy Suburbans - how did you people suddenly decide that THIS is the proper temperature for the Earth?

Do you understand that the wobble of Earth's orbit in relation to the sun and it's activity is responsible for the cycles in temperature?

1/3 of 1% of 0.04%. Think about that.

Then we have the curious fact that the ice at both poles of our planet have actually grown - the North Ice Cap at 43% to 62% according to satellites - despite Al Gore's confident prediction that all of the ice would be gone by 2013. He still has his Nobel Prize for his unrivaled prophetic understanding of the unimaginable calamity about to befall us, though, so don't fret.

His bank account grew nicely, too, but probably at a much higher rate than a paltry 43% - 62%. Those private jets don't refuel themselves, bitches!

I can't believe that you guys have gotten as far as you have with your hand-wringing while moaning "The End Is Nigh!".

If you really want to stop Climate Change, you geniuses need to figure out how to stop the Earth's wobble. And regulate the output of the sun, because it varies by a factor of 0.1% in the 11 year cycle. Oh yeah, and correct the orbit around the sun so that it's nice and even. Only then, Pete, will you have stopped climate change.

I don't know how many Jupiter-sized rockets you're going to need to correct Earth's orbit, but I'm looking forward to your solutions.

Gunny

02-03-2016, 10:38 AM

Look Pete311, I'm not going to dissect the data here for you. You Warmists are a religious group, and nothing I can say will sway you.

I'm a licensed professional engineer and I went to graduate school for environmental engineering, so suffice it to say, I know a bit about math and working with large amounts of data, as well as complex computer models. Regarding large models, someone once posited the "butterfly effect", that is, a butterfly lands on an elephant's face, causing it to swing its head and hit the one next to it, causing a stampede, changing the migration pattern of a flock of birds, causing the insect population of a region to explode, deforesting a region, causing the climate to change....

I've done enough modelling myself to understand that a small change in a one or two variables can make a dramatic impact on the end result.

Back in the day I was working with historical weather data to size leachate storage tanks for a municipal landfill. I noticed several anomalies in the main weather collection station and did a little digging. The snow accumulation for "Syracuse, NY" was reported for something like 90 years, and the last 30 or so averaged much higher than the previous 60. After a little digging, I found that the weather station had been moved from downtown, where historically canal and rail traffic was important, to the airport ten miles north, now that air travel is important. If you are familiar with the region, you'd know that Syracuse (city) gets about 80" of snow, far north Watertown gets about that, and little Pulaski, right between them and due east of the huge expanse of Lake Ontario, averages something like 200". Ontario dumps "Lake Effect" snow via prevailing easterly winds, swinging towards the north, then the south, depending on the exact wind direction. Sometimes it hits Syracuse, sometimes Watertown, but Pulaski gets it almost every time. The Syracuse airport, being closer to Pulaski, gets a lot more snow than the City proper.

From that I learned that historical data is always suspect. To that, add in the FACT that urbanization has occurred at weather collection stations. A remote outpost next to a grass field now has a parking lot next to it; black asphalt collecting heat. Or heat pump units discharging heat in the summer and sucking in heat during the cooler months. Different methods of collection. Different people doing the collection. People not collecting data properly, or not collecting it at all and filling in tables at the end of the week...

To "fix" these anomalies, climatologists have taken it upon themselves to "adjust" the historical data. Enter the butterfly effect. A modeler can make the model do whatever he wants it to do.

Bottom line is, is the climate changing? Of course it is. It has in the past; that's why we have glacial deposits as far south as Long Island. That's why northern Europe had more productive farmland a hundred or so years ago. So be prepared.

Is man causing it by emitting CO2? Kinda doubt it. Not with volcanoes spewing more than my cars do.

Pete, you do know that our CO2 emissions total 1/3 of 1% of a gas that comprises 0.04 of our atmosphere? Do you know what a miniscule number that is in the grand scheme of things?

So, while you and your kind figure out if we're headed to either an Ice Age or the Inferno Age - and you nutjobs can't even agree on that - let's take a look at the overall picture of Earth's temperature historically :

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8345&stc=1

Yup. That's 500 million years of Climate Change! Take a gander at those peaks and valleys - they are quite remarkable and extreme, wouldn't you allow?

Given that the Earth is quite literally all over the map naturally with regard to temperature - and this was all done without those evil corporate-y Oil Companies and Chevy Suburbans - how did you people suddenly decide that THIS is the proper temperature for the Earth?

Do you understand that the wobble of Earth's orbit in relation to the sun and it's activity is responsible for the cycles in temperature?

1/3 of 1% of 0.04%. Think about that.

Then we have the curious fact that the ice at both poles of our planet have actually grown - the North Ice Cap at 43% to 62% according to satellites - despite Al Gore's confident prediction that all of the ice would be gone by 2013. He still has his Nobel Prize for his unrivaled prophetic understanding of the unimaginable calamity about to befall us, though, so don't fret.

His bank account grew nicely, too, but probably at a much higher rate than a paltry 43% - 62%. Those private jets don't refuel themselves, bitches!

I can't believe that you guys have gotten as far as you have with your hand-wringing while moaning "The End Is Nigh!".

If you really want to stop Climate Change, you geniuses need to figure out how to stop the Earth's wobble. And regulate the output of the sun, because it varies by a factor of 0.1% in the 11 year cycle. Oh yeah, and correct the orbit around the sun so that it's nice and even. Only then, Pete, will you have stopped climate change.

I don't know how many Jupiter-sized rockets you're going to need to correct Earth's orbit, but I'm looking forward to your solutions.

Damn that had to hurt. :laugh2:

Jeff

02-03-2016, 10:50 AM

Damn that had to hurt. :laugh2:

Looks as though Pete is still icing that butt down. :laugh:

Gunny

02-03-2016, 11:01 AM

Looks as though Pete is still icing that butt down. :laugh:

Y'think? If that hiney don't hurt he must not have any feeling in it. :laugh2:

pete311

02-03-2016, 11:06 AM

Is man causing it by emitting CO2? Kinda doubt it. Not with volcanoes spewing more than my cars do.

This is just false. What other misconceptions do you have?
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

btw, I love how you guys just blindly high five each others misconceptions. It says a lot.

pete311

02-03-2016, 11:26 AM

Pete, you do know that our CO2 emissions total 1/3 of 1% of a gas that comprises 0.04 of our atmosphere? Do you know what a miniscule number that is in the grand scheme of things?

I don't care what your personal opinion is. C02 is proven to be a significant gas in the atmosphere. A grain of Ricin in your soup by percentage is nothing, but it might end up killing you.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

Yup. That's 500 million years of Climate Change! Take a gander at those peaks and valleys - they are quite remarkable and extreme, wouldn't you allow?

Sure, and?

Given that the Earth is quite literally all over the map naturally with regard to temperature - and this was all done without those evil corporate-y Oil Companies and Chevy Suburbans - how did you people suddenly decide that THIS is the proper temperature for the Earth?

By "this" I assume you mean current or near current temperature. This may not be the proper temperature for Earth (not sure what that even means), but it obviously is the right temperature for humans.

Do you understand that the wobble of Earth's orbit in relation to the sun and it's activity is responsible for the cycles in temperature?

Explained here
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

Then we have the curious fact that the ice at both poles of our planet have actually grown - the North Ice Cap at 43% to 62% according to satellites

Antarctic ice has been increasing because of changing winds while the sea is actually warming
https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

North pole ice is declining by 3.4% per decade
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

jimnyc

02-03-2016, 11:31 AM

btw, I love how you guys just blindly high five each others misconceptions. It says a lot.

And yet you blindly run around and support global warming, even though studies have been proven to be altered.

And the global warming monkeys continue to have their events snowed out! :laugh:

Gunny

02-03-2016, 11:36 AM

I don't care what your personal opinion is. C02 is proven to be a significant gas in the atmosphere. A grain of Ricin in your soup by percentage is nothing, but it might end up killing you.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

Sure, and?

By "this" I assume you mean current or near current temperature. This may not be the proper temperature for Earth (not sure what that even means), but it obviously is the right temperature for humans.

Explained here
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

Antarctic ice has been increasing because of changing winds while the sea is actually warming
https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

North pole ice is declining by 3.4% per decade
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

C02 is in the atmosphere? Who'd have ever thought that? You mean like we breathe in oxygen and emit C02? Guess we need to start stopping people from breathing?

Do you realize how dumb it sounds that Antarctic ice is increasing because the seas are getting warmer? Add some logic to that, huh? Last I check, the scientific operation of warmer water means melted ice. Not a larger polar icecap.

pete311

02-03-2016, 11:36 AM

And yet you blindly run around and support global warming, even though studies have been proven to be altered.

A few studies out of thousands and that was like 8 years ago. There are bad studies in every area of science. Some how we still progress.

pete311

02-03-2016, 11:39 AM

Do you realize how dumb it sounds that Antarctic ice is increasing because the seas are getting warmer? Add some logic to that, huh? Last I check, the scientific operation of warmer water means melted ice. Not a larger polar icecap.

When did I say antarctic ice is increasing because the seas are getting warmer? You do realize Antarctica is a continent right? It's not floating ice. Seriously, these are basic facts. How can you argue against scientists who dedicate decades of time to research when you don't know Antarctica is land.

jimnyc

02-03-2016, 11:40 AM

A few studies out of thousands and that was like 8 years ago. There are bad studies in every area of science. Some how we still progress.

Exactly - somehow we still progress, regardless of wacky complaints.

http://i.imgur.com/VJnUI55.jpg

fj1200

02-03-2016, 11:41 AM

Good, Americans are catching onto this scam.

-----

A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries found only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/poll-91-of-americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/

Which is a different question of whether you believe it's occurring or not.

http://cdnph.upi.com/sv/b/i/UPI-4111445374964/2015/1/14453760461359/Poll-76-percent-of-Americans-say-climate-change-is-happening.jpg
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/10/20/Poll-76-percent-of-Americans-say-climate-change-is-happening/4111445374964/

jimnyc

02-03-2016, 11:42 AM

Which is a different question of whether you believe it's occurring or not.

I think the temps occur the same as they have for the last jillion years.

pete311

02-03-2016, 11:44 AM

Exactly - somehow we still progress, regardless of wacky complaints.

When 97% of climate scientists agree, it's not a wacky complaint

pete311

02-03-2016, 11:46 AM

I think the temps occur the same as they have for the last jillion years.

We we might as well ask a homeless man for the economic policy plan for the US. Get my drift? Your random opinion means nothing.

Gunny

02-03-2016, 11:48 AM

When 97% of climate scientists agree, it's not a wacky complaint

You mean that 97% of climate scientists who wouldn't have jobs sucking off of public funds if they didn't create a problem? Those guys?

pete311

02-03-2016, 11:50 AM

You mean that 97% of climate scientists who wouldn't have jobs sucking off of public funds if they didn't create a problem? Those guys?

Yeah I'm talking about the tens of thousands of passionate climate scientists around the globe who are all involved in this super intricate conspiracy...

Kathianne

02-03-2016, 11:54 AM

Yeah I'm talking about the tens of thousands of passionate climate scientists around the globe who are all involved in this super intricate conspiracy...

Tens of thousands of climate scientists? Give a link to that please.

Gunny

02-03-2016, 11:55 AM

Yeah I'm talking about the tens of thousands of passionate climate scientists around the globe who are all involved in this super intricate conspiracy...

Hardly a conspiracy when one is out to make a fortune doing nothing and proving nothing. How much of our economy would you guess is stuck in proving theories as opposed to factual truths? We could be out of the hole in a couple of years.

The actual truth is our climate is goiing up by 1.3 degrees. Y'all must not live in the South because 1.3 degrees ain't shit to us. Everything over 98 feels the same.

pete311

02-03-2016, 12:01 PM

Tens of thousands of climate scientists? Give a link to that please.

There isn't a master list, but I've seen it listed anywhere from 18,000 to 30,000. It really depends how you define the profession.

The consensus on climate change is strengthening over time: James L. Powell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Powell) analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming#cite_note-14) His follow-up analysis of 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that by then only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.

pete311

02-03-2016, 12:02 PM

The actual truth is our climate is goiing up by 1.3 degrees. Y'all must not live in the South because 1.3 degrees ain't shit to us. Everything over 98 feels the same.

For some reason you can't appreciate the intricacies of what a global temperature rise means. Stop thinking locally.

jimnyc

02-03-2016, 12:08 PM

We we might as well ask a homeless man for the economic policy plan for the US. Get my drift? Your random opinion means nothing.

Then why are YOU posting? I would assume that means your opinion means nothing as well.

91% of America isn't worried either. That must be frustrating to those who fall for this scam.

pete311

02-03-2016, 12:10 PM

Then why are YOU posting? I would assume that means your opinion means nothing as well.

91% of America isn't worried either. That must be frustrating to those who fall for this scam.

I back my opinion with data. It's not just a feeling.

Kathianne

02-03-2016, 12:12 PM

Meaning that these scientists agree that climate is changing and that man has more than 50% impact. Regardless of changes made, there's little that will change by the politics that have been brought in other than making a few people very, very rich and causing many more-tens or hundreds of thousands to lose what little they have:

http://tdworld.com/generation-renewables/politics-climate-change

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

I might take the whole thing a bit more seriously when those shouting, such as Obama start reducing their carbon footprints.

Gunny

02-03-2016, 12:22 PM

For some reason you can't appreciate the intricacies of what a global temperature rise means. Stop thinking locally.

So now I don't appreciate the intricacies of junk science? Guilty. Don't think that means for a second I don't understand. How about YOU try thinking logically? Instead of finding someone to blame, why don't you try figuring out how to deal with it since it's happening whether or not you like it?

What part of Al Gore and his ilk paying money for a carbon footprint so those asses can do as they please changes reality? And you actually buy this crap? By your way of thinking, as long as you are elitist enough to hand over some cash it's just fine.

Here's a better idea ... try dealing with reality instead of some concocted BS.

jimnyc

02-03-2016, 12:25 PM

I back my opinion with data. It's not just a feeling.

Your data sucks, and that's why 91% of America laughs at it.

Gunny

02-03-2016, 12:59 PM

I will reiterate ... where's MY damned global warming? I got a new weight bench that'll hold 500 lbs but it's too f-ing cold for me to use the damned thing. And just to put it in perspective, I love my weights as much as Jeff loves his bike.

glockmail

02-03-2016, 01:05 PM

This is just false. What other misconceptions do you have?
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

Nice attempt to ignore 90% of my post. What other misconceptions do you have?

pete311

02-03-2016, 01:06 PM

The politics and science are two different things.

Your data sucks, and that's why 91% of America laughs at it.

91% of America can't do basic math and are short sighted

pete311

02-03-2016, 01:08 PM

Nice attempt to ignore 90% of my post. What other misconceptions do you have?

Nice attempt to brush away my calling you out on your misconception.

Little-Acorn

02-03-2016, 01:12 PM

What makes you think we are incapable of this?

The complete lack of any proof that we have affected the climate at all.

Despite forty-plus years of hysterical liberals insisting it's "true", and bending over backwards to persuade us.

.

pete311

02-03-2016, 01:15 PM

The complete lack of any proof that we have affected the climate at all.

What would be proof for you? We have the data that CO2 emissions sky rocket at the point of the industrial revolution.

Elessar

02-03-2016, 01:20 PM

Well, you kinda got to think about it. I live in the damned desert. Anyone want to explain this f-ing snow in my yard? It ain't warm, I can tell you that.

I wish I had snow...not 30 inches of rain since 01 Dec!

However, there is this: http://www.wfmz.com/weather/How-many-inches-would-rain-be-if-it-were-snow/185244

jimnyc

02-03-2016, 01:26 PM

91% of America can't do basic math and are short sighted

Source please?

Gunny

02-03-2016, 01:29 PM

I wish I had snow...not 30 inches of rain since 01 Dec!

However, there is this: http://www.wfmz.com/weather/How-many-inches-would-rain-be-if-it-were-snow/185244

I want to play with my new weight bench, dammit. And I started this shit, just so you know. Guess who put his snow boots up 3 days ago? Been snowing the last 2. God hates me. :laugh:

pete311

02-03-2016, 01:29 PM

Source please?

The percentage was a joke, but still
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/23-advanced-economies-us-adults-rank-21st-math-skills

Elessar

02-03-2016, 01:35 PM

I want to play with my new weight bench, dammit. And I started this shit, just so you know. Guess who put his snow boots up 3 days ago? Been snowing the last 2. God hates me. :laugh:

Poor Wittle Fella!:laugh: Thank that God it was not snow here! 300 inches +/- might have been a bit rough!

Little-Acorn

02-03-2016, 01:38 PM

The complete lack of any proof that we have affected the climate at all.

Despite forty-plus years of hysterical liberals insisting it's "true", and bending over backwards to persuade us.

To elaborate:

The first official "Earth Day" was April 22, 1970. And the big concern then, was "Global Cooling".

People have been "researching" this supposed manmade climate change for forty-five years. And after all that researching, all that screaming, all that denigration of those who don't see any evidence for it...

...not a single report proving that man has had any impact on climate change, or can ever have any in the foreseeable future, has ever been published.

Not one. In forty-six years.

Lots of stuff has been published saying that man has had an effect on climate change. and lots of it claims to "prove" it, or at least support it, by "logic" such as:

1.) Increased levels of (CO2, methane, hydrogen, pick your favorite "greenhouse gas") can change the climate.

2.) Man can create more greenhouse gases by paving too much land, or burning fossil fuels, or exhaling really heavily (insert the activity you want to demonize here).

3.) Man is doing that activity, so man is changing the climate.

No attempt to establish what increase in gases is necessary to actually change the climate in whatever way you are fearing this week. No attempt to find if man is actually creating that much. No attempt to find if such increases do or don't trigger other events that might absorb or use up more of those gases (more plants growing or oceans absorbing or whatever). Etc. etc.

And a great deal of publishing has been done, of documents that purport to "prove" that man is affecting the climate, by referring to long bibliographies of learned documents and other "studies". But if you actually look into those bibliographies and open up the documents they cite, you find... you guessed it, more bibliographies, pointing to yet more documents. No actual studies or experiments that demonstrate what the publishers say is true. Just references to even more studies... which in turn refer to even more studies... none of which ever actually prove the original assertion.

FORTY-SIX YEARS. And not a single actual proof.

There's a reason for this. And it's similar to the reason why no chemical has ever been found that can turn lead into gold... something that has been "researched" for thousands of years.

And the reason is, because there just plain isn't any.

Go peddle your papers, manmade-global-whatever hysterics. You HAVE succeeded in convincing the rest of us of one thing: that you're selling snake oil, no matter how high a price you're charging for it. Nothing else could account for your complete failure to produce even ONE piece of proof, after all the resources you have expended (usually from other peoples' pockets) and forty-plus years of trying.

Why not join the Flat Earth Society? You'll find some people there, who have the mindset needed to believe you.

pete311

02-03-2016, 01:59 PM

"Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in theatmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured byCO2.The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Little-Acorn

02-03-2016, 02:39 PM

Lots of stuff has been published saying that man has had an effect on climate change. and lots of it claims to "prove" it, or at least support it, by "logic" such as:

1.) Increased levels of (CO2, methane, hydrogen, pick your favorite "greenhouse gas") can change the climate.

2.) Man can create more greenhouse gases by paving too much land, or burning fossil fuels, or exhaling really heavily (insert the activity you want to demonize here).

3.) Man is doing that activity, so man is changing the climate.

No attempt to establish what increase in gases is necessary to actually change the climate in whatever way you are fearing this week. No attempt to find if man is actually creating that much. No attempt to find if such increases do or don't trigger other events that might absorb or use up more of those gases (more plants growing or oceans absorbing or whatever). Etc. etc.
"Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere. Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism. Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels. And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

See? :D

NightTrain

02-03-2016, 03:09 PM

I have to say, Petey, that your rebuttal - if you can call it that - was weak even by your standards.

I don't care what your personal opinion is. C02 is proven to be a significant gas in the atmosphere. A grain of Ricin in your soup by percentage is nothing, but it might end up killing you.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

My opinion? Those are hard facts, Petey. 1/3 of 1% of 0.04%.

If you had bothered to actually read through that website, you would have seen this from your own link:

I make no comment in the post about the temperature record. I also see nothing unusual in today’s conditions.
I make no claim that recent (last 100-150 years) temperature increases are caused by CO2.

Yup. That's 500 million years of Climate Change! Take a gander at those peaks and valleys - they are quite remarkable and extreme, wouldn't you allow?

Sure, and?

What do you suppose has caused the earth to go through the spikes in temperature for the last 500 million years? Or the many ice ages?

Another laughably dishonest manipulation that you lot love to use are graphs that use data of the last few years instead of the overall picture of Earth's history.

I can't help but note you didn't want to address the obvious point that the earth does this regardless of if there's life on the planet or not. It still does this all on it's own.

The Earth will continue to do this long after we're gone, as long as it continues to wobble through space around that real hot glowy thing on an elliptical orbit.

Allow me to include a picture for you since you are having trouble comprehending words :

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8346&stc=1

Let me know if you don't understand the wobble and we can delve into solar energy absorption as it relates to the angle of Earth relative to the Sun.

By "this" I assume you mean current or near current temperature. This may not be the proper temperature for Earth (not sure what that even means), but it obviously is the right temperature for humans.

Yes. You are correct.

One of you hippies decided back in the '70s that this is the RIGHT temperature and we need to maintain this temperature. The other hippies nodded in sage agreement, while observing the Puff-Puff-Pass Rule, and decided that something had to be done about it. The idea caught on despite common knowledge regarding solar radiation, proximity and orbital relationships, and they concluded that the Ice Age was imminent. NASA launched a satellite in 1979 to begin investigating - and that happened to be right at the tail end of a well documented cooling cycle.

Keep up here, Petey, this is important : The Ice Caps on both ends of the planet were pretty beefy at the tail end of that cooling cycle in 1979. The Earth warmed up a bit, as it always has, and those Ice Caps retreated until 2012. Since then, the Ice Caps have grown substantially.

Gunny caught it, and I did too - almost sprayed my laptop with premium coffee :

Antarctic ice has been increasing because of changing winds while the sea is actually warming

Do you realize how dumb it sounds that Antarctic ice is increasing because the seas are getting warmer?

That has to be THE most ignorant thing I've ever read, Petey. Ever.

Warmer water and warmer winds make billions of tons of extra ice? Do you have one of those newfangled ice-making furnaces in your house?

North pole ice is declining by 3.4% per decade
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Cherrypicking data is fun!

How do you account for this, Petey? This is also from your site :

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8347&stc=1

The red area is 2012; the green area is 2015.

It is abundantly clear that there has been hundreds of miles of additional ice created in the Arctic from 2012 to 2015. That's because there's been a HUGE decrease in CO2, right?

After all, you claim that CO2 is THE driving force of our weather patterns, right?

How is it that our CO2 levels have NOT dropped since 2012, and yet there is irrefutable evidence that there is more Ice at both poles?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8348&stc=1

Nukeman

02-03-2016, 03:46 PM

personally I always like this graph.. WE have had numerous Ice age events that are followed by sudden increases. Looking at this graph WE ARE DOING WHAT HAS BEEN DONE REPEATEDLY...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

http://seaandskyny.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/figure11.jpg

jimnyc

02-03-2016, 03:57 PM

Petey Wan Kenobi, that's awesome! At least Petey isn't claiming the poor little bears have to resort to motor oil for dinner!

Gunny

02-03-2016, 03:59 PM

pete311

02-03-2016, 11:06 PM

My opinion? Those are hard facts, Petey. 1/3 of 1% of 0.04%.

Where do you get this number and why do you think it's so damning?

Let me know if you don't understand the wobble and we can delve into solar energy absorption as it relates to the angle of Earth relative to the Sun.

I already gave you a reference that says the wobble is not significant or this issue

Keep up here, Petey, this is important : The Ice Caps on both ends of the planet were pretty beefy at the tail end of that cooling cycle in 1979. The Earth warmed up a bit, as it always has, and those Ice Caps retreated until 2012. Since then, the Ice Caps have grown substantially.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654

Warmer water and warmer winds make billions of tons of extra ice? Do you have one of those newfangled ice-making furnaces in your house?

The water is warmer, the air is colder. Antarctica is land. What don't you understand?

Cherrypicking data is fun!

How do you account for this, Petey? This is also from your site :

The red area is 2012; the green area is 2015.

It is abundantly clear that there has been hundreds of miles of additional ice created in the Arctic from 2012 to 2015. That's because there's been a HUGE decrease in CO2, right?

What was that you said about showing graphs from the past few years instead of looking at a bigger history?

In any case, there will always be fluctuations. It's not a 45 degree line.

After all, you claim that CO2 is THE driving force of our weather patterns, right?

I have not made this claim

How is it that our CO2 levels have NOT dropped since 2012, and yet there is irrefutable evidence that there is more Ice at both poles?

I addressed this above, but something else to remember is that what is really important for the Arctic is multiyear ice. This is ice that doesn't melt in the summer. Even if there are gains in winter, it's only temporary annual ice. Multiyear ice is being lost. So there will always be ice in winter, but in summer when the multiyear ice is gone, the ice cap will be gone.

pete311

02-03-2016, 11:07 PM

I'm kind of curious as to which point exactly you figure out everyone's whipping your ass?

Hey Gunny, Antarctica is land. Just a thought.

danielle

02-03-2016, 11:41 PM

Have any of you seen how much the Great Barrier Reef in Australia is declining? Or how some Arctic life is dying off because the temperatures are rising and the ice is getting thinner? Animal life is dying while people argue politics.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

02-03-2016, 11:45 PM

I don't think any global warming research is talking about altering the universe. No it's not local, it's global averages. When their shorelines are flooded like New Orleans they will.

When their shorelines are flooded like New Orleans they will.

Didnt that flooded cities shoreline crap date issued by Al Gore over a decade ago just pass the other day? Why yes it did and nothing happened!
Are you that daft that with the proven corruption, falsified data, lies , false time predictions, money making , power grabbing crap going on using this scam and you still believe it!!!
Say, I have this ocean front property in Kansas , nice ocean view and all- I'll let ya have it real cheap--deal? Send me a pm , its a really sweet deal..--Tyr

pete311

02-04-2016, 02:25 AM

Didnt that flooded cities shoreline crap date issued by Al Gore over a decade ago just pass the other day? Why yes it did and nothing happened!
Are you that daft that with the proven corruption, falsified data, lies , false time predictions, money making , power grabbing crap going on using this scam and you still believe it!!!
Say, I have this ocean front property in Kansas , nice ocean view and all- I'll let ya have it real cheap--deal? Send me a pm , its a really sweet deal..--Tyr

What would Al Gore know? He's a politician. I don't listen to a gardener on how to fix my transmission.

NightTrain

02-04-2016, 02:49 AM

I already gave you a reference that says the wobble is not significant or this issue

You really don't have to look very hard to understand that the wobble has a huge impact on Earth's temperature.

As the Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) spins around its axis and orbits around the Sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun), several quasi-periodic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-periodic) variations occur due to gravitational interactions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_(astronomy)). Although the curves have a large number of sinusoidal components, a few components are dominant.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#cite_note-2) Milankovitch studied changes in the orbital eccentricity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity), obliquity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obliquity), and precession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_(astronomy)) of Earth's movements. Such changes in movement and orientation alter the amount and location of solar radiation reaching the Earth. This is known as solar forcing (an example of radiative forcing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing)). Changes near the north polar area, about 65 degrees North, are considered important due to the great amount of land. Land masses respond to temperature change more quickly than oceans, which have a higher effective heat capacity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity), because of the mixing of surface and deep water and the fact that the specific heat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat) of solids is generally lower than that of water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654

A link to the Beeb? How cute.

Here, have some Forbes :

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#77afe0e932da

The water is warmer, the air is colder. Antarctica is land. What don't you understand?

I understand quite well that Antarctica is a land mass; but we're talking about the trillions of tons of ice that cover and surround it, aren't we? Aren't you worried about the shrinking ice in the polar regions of our planet as proof of your Global Warming? Weren't you the one that pointed out that the ice caps were melting at an alarming rate?

Your claims of warmer conditions being conducive to ice growth is bizarre. Do you understand that the temperature of the water and the air above it are tied inextricably?

Now you don't want to talk about Antarctica's ice mass? Why not?

What was that you said about showing graphs from the past few years instead of looking at a bigger history?

In any case, there will always be fluctuations. It's not a 45 degree line.

I thought it was clear : Cherrypicking data is fun! And it's what you and your accomplices do endlessly.` You of all people should appreciate my cherrypicking.

Nevertheless, it did illustrate that even though the CO2 rate in the atmosphere has NOT decreased, the Polar Ice Caps DID increase. What gives?

After all, you claim that CO2 is THE driving force of our weather patterns, right?

I have not made this claim

You haven't?

Nearly every glacier is receding. I've personally been to a few and had to walk a couple miles extra to get to the base than people even 10 years ago. Here is the arctic ice review for 2015 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Honestly I don't know what part is controversial for you? C02 is a greenhouse gas. Over the past 100 years it's spiked and all signs are to modern industry.

I don't for a minute buy into man made global warming. I don't care how many glaciers melt, it's not caused by man.

What then do you think is responsible for the doubling of C02 in the last 100 years?

Mmmmhmmm. Besides the fact that you've been running around insisting that manmade CO2 is driving Global Warming?

Here's an interesting tidbit for you to ponder :

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8350&stc=1

This is a snapshot of the Little Ice Age. How do you explain the sudden spike in Earth's temperature, followed 260 years later by a spike in CO2 levels?

That's an example of the Cart before the Horse according to your argument, isn't it?

I addressed this above, but something else to remember is that what is really important for the Arctic is multiyear ice. This is ice that doesn't melt in the summer. Even if there are gains in winter, it's only temporary annual ice. Multiyear ice is being lost. So there will always be ice in winter, but in summer when the multiyear ice is gone, the ice cap will be gone.

No, Petey. That's not true.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8351&stc=1

It shows a normal ebb and flow of weather cycles, and it's clearly been growing since 2007. And this is from the people that depend on fearmongering to keep those dollars rolling in. You just have to dig a little for the truth, Petey.

Don't you think it's weird that I'm using the same sites as you are for data, and showing the reverse of what you're arguing?

I'm still having a polite LOL over ScienceOfDoom's own statement that his math shows nothing of what you claimed it did. I have to admit, he's a pretty smart guy.

Additionally, I can't help but notice that you've skipped large points and questions posed to you. I realize that they're pretty hard to answer, but they do add to the overall discussion as to why the Earth's climate fluctuates, and I'd hate to see you miss out on a large part of the puzzle that has so obviously eluded you.

Jeff

02-04-2016, 08:45 AM

I want to play with my new weight bench, dammit. And I started this shit, just so you know. Guess who put his snow boots up 3 days ago? Been snowing the last 2. God hates me. :laugh:

:lol: Enjoy the snow :laugh:

And Gunny a real Marine would thrown a pair of shorts on along with those snow boots and broke that bench in. :laugh:

Gunny

02-04-2016, 08:48 AM

The politics and science are two different things.

91% of America can't do basic math and are short sighted

You think? I ain't half as smart as some of these guys you're arguing with and I can figure the velocity drop on a .308 at 1500 meters. And I can figure the voltage drop on your electricity in about a minute. Assume much?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

02-04-2016, 09:07 AM

What would Al Gore know? He's a politician. I don't listen to a gardener on how to fix my transmission.

Yet you proudly listen to those using global warming as a political tool to advance their agenda, make money while doing so and try to get the world united under a "one world government" to solve this massive scam.
And do so even now after tons of lying propaganda has been shown to be lies, prophecies screamed out decades ago never came true, governments took actions that limited millions and millions of people's freedoms and wealth etc.

Admit it, you are as lost as a fish on a mountain top...
Nighttrain's post just proved it even more solidly.. -Tyr

pete311

02-04-2016, 11:49 AM

You really don't have to look very hard to understand that the wobble has a huge impact on Earth's temperature.

Not important on this time scale we're looking at.

Your claims of warmer conditions being conducive to ice growth is bizarre. Do you understand that the temperature of the water and the air above it are tied inextricably?

Now you don't want to talk about Antarctica's ice mass? Why not?

Which post did I claim warmer conditions grow ice? Water and air temp are not tied inextricably. Air temp from wind patterns can change within hours. Water temp is much more slow.

I thought it was clear : Cherrypicking data is fun! And it's what you and your accomplices do endlessly.` You of all people should appreciate my cherrypicking.

Nevertheless, it did illustrate that even though the CO2 rate in the atmosphere has NOT decreased, the Polar Ice Caps DID increase. What gives?

The explanation I've read is it's due to changing wind patterns.

This is a snapshot of the Little Ice Age. How do you explain the sudden spike in Earth's temperature, followed 260 years later by a spike in CO2 levels?

I can't read that little image and I'm not a climate scientist so I can't explain the earth's climate history. Can you explain it? If not, then it is useless for this discussion.

It shows a normal ebb and flow of weather cycles, and it's clearly been growing since 2007. And this is from the people that depend on fearmongering to keep those dollars rolling in. You just have to dig a little for the truth, Petey.

Climate scientists aren't day traders, what is important is the long term trend. 5 year ice is still down 50% from 83 or 87 whatever, I removed the image I can't see anymore.

Additionally, I can't help but notice that you've skipped large points and questions posed to you. I realize that they're pretty hard to answer, but they do add to the overall discussion as to why the Earth's climate fluctuates, and I'd hate to see you miss out on a large part of the puzzle that has so obviously eluded you.

Either I had nothing to say, didn't think it was interesting or I'm frustrated with replying using the ancient software that doesn't use multiquote well and it takes me a long time to format all these damn quotes. It's really a pain in the ass.

pete311

02-04-2016, 11:50 AM

You think? I ain't half as smart as some of these guys you're arguing with and I can figure the velocity drop on a .308 at 1500 meters. And I can figure the voltage drop on your electricity in about a minute. Assume much?

Gunny, stop wasting my time by writing cheerleader posts

pete311

02-04-2016, 11:51 AM

Yet you proudly listen to those using global warming as a political tool to advance their agenda, make money while doing so and try to get the world united under a "one world government" to solve this massive scam.

cookoo cookoo...Go back to your bunker. I'll tell you when it's all over. (probably not)

jimnyc

02-04-2016, 11:57 AM

1. Record Ice
In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VMKSnXZCZHA)in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/25/antarctic-expedition-stranded-as-ship-gets-stuck-in-ice). Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014 (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/). The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/ice-visible-lake-superior-weeks-ahead-schedule/story?id=26939239). You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013).
2. Record Snow
2014 saw record snowfall (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/04/fall-snow-cover-in-northern-hemisphere-was-most-extensive-on-record-even-with-temperatures-at-high-mark/) in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/04/fall-snow-cover-in-northern-hemisphere-was-most-extensive-on-record-even-with-temperatures-at-high-mark/).
3. Record Cold
In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013)remember the Polar Vortex? (http://m4gw.com/i-cant-wait-for-polar-vortex-the-movie/) You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”
4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level (http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/437.php), and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.
5. Polar Bears Are Thriving
You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving (http://polarbearscience.com/2014/11/19/polar-bear-researchers-knew-s-beaufort-population-continued-to-increase-up-to-2012/).
6. Moose Are Making A Comeback
A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming (http://www.treehugger.com/endangered-species/moose-are-dying-climate-change.html), then they did a study (http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2014/11/17/study-impact-wolves-minnesota-moose-greater-expected/) and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming (http://m4gw.com/on-migrating-moose-and-migrating-temperature-trends/) in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones (http://m4gw.com/is-global-warming-killing-the-moose-in-minnesota-i-dont-think-so/).
7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. (http://m4gw.com/99-of-scientists-dont-believe-in-global-warming/) That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe (http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/that_97_solution_again/) in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/) saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.
8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America (http://m4gw.com/new-nasa-satellite-data-flips-climate-science-on-its-head/), Africa and China.
9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.

If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/12/satellite-data-says-2014-actually-wasnt-the-warmest-on-record/) in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement (http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php). Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/21/2014-among-the-3-percent-coldest-years-in-10000-years/) within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.
10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players

One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

pete311

02-04-2016, 12:21 PM

1. Record Ice
In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/#.VMKSnXZCZHA)in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/25/antarctic-expedition-stranded-as-ship-gets-stuck-in-ice). Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014 (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/). The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/ice-visible-lake-superior-weeks-ahead-schedule/story?id=26939239). You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013).
2. Record Snow
2014 saw record snowfall (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/04/fall-snow-cover-in-northern-hemisphere-was-most-extensive-on-record-even-with-temperatures-at-high-mark/) in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/04/fall-snow-cover-in-northern-hemisphere-was-most-extensive-on-record-even-with-temperatures-at-high-mark/).
3. Record Cold
In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013)remember the Polar Vortex? (http://m4gw.com/i-cant-wait-for-polar-vortex-the-movie/) You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”

Stop thinking local, this is about water, air, land average global temps. Fluctuations are always going to happen. It's not a 45 degree line. Long term trends are what is important.

4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level (http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/437.php), and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

I don't care what a politician says. Exactly what gives him the right to make scientific predictions?

5. Polar Bears Are Thriving
You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving (http://polarbearscience.com/2014/11/19/polar-bear-researchers-knew-s-beaufort-population-continued-to-increase-up-to-2012/).
6. Moose Are Making A Comeback
A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming (http://www.treehugger.com/endangered-species/moose-are-dying-climate-change.html), then they did a study (http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2014/11/17/study-impact-wolves-minnesota-moose-greater-expected/) and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming (http://m4gw.com/on-migrating-moose-and-migrating-temperature-trends/) in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones (http://m4gw.com/is-global-warming-killing-the-moose-in-minnesota-i-dont-think-so/).

Awesome to hear, animals adapt. Not really relevant to the science of global warming.

7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. (http://m4gw.com/99-of-scientists-dont-believe-in-global-warming/) That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe (http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/that_97_solution_again/) in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/) saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

Looks like a bunk biased website. No info on the organization. The key here is that within the past few years 12k research studies support global warming with 2 against it. What the hell are these supposed 31k scientists actually doing?

8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America (http://m4gw.com/new-nasa-satellite-data-flips-climate-science-on-its-head/), Africa and China.

Link is broken and I am skeptical because the rainforest absorbs C02

9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.

If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever (http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/12/satellite-data-says-2014-actually-wasnt-the-warmest-on-record/) in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement (http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php). Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/21/2014-among-the-3-percent-coldest-years-in-10000-years/) within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

Long term trends is important, not year to year

10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players

One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

Ah yes, all the thousands of climate scientists around the world in yachts and super cars...

jimnyc

02-04-2016, 12:36 PM

Gunny

02-04-2016, 01:11 PM

I won't be changing my ways one iota. The trends since the beginning of, like TIME, show that what is happening is nothing unusual. Sorry if that pisses off some treehuggers somewhere, and those that would like to fine $ those of use that don't believe this crap, or speak otherwise. I won't stop any of you from buying cool electric cars and using brown bags though. Me? Large gas vehicles all the way!! We had a thread recently about how many cylinders we own all told, including ALL motored devices. I didn't fair too well and need to beef things up. My new snowblower will help, but I'm thinking about also a 1972 Dodge van that I can park on the side of my house, just to start like once a month and let it send chimney signals out to all of the liberal weenies shaking their fists.

WAIT! You got the snowblower? The wife caved after all these years? You need to get her on the phone with my GF so I can get some new damned toys.

And I wouldn't get a 72 Dodge. Get a Chevy. Dodges had the worst engines and drivetrains in the universe in the early 70s.

pete311

02-04-2016, 02:16 PM

I won't be changing my ways one iota. The trends since the beginning of, like TIME, show that what is happening is nothing unusual. Sorry if that pisses off some treehuggers somewhere, and those that would like to fine $ those of use that don't believe this crap, or speak otherwise. I won't stop any of you from buying cool electric cars and using brown bags though. Me? Large gas vehicles all the way!! We had a thread recently about how many cylinders we own all told, including ALL motored devices. I didn't fair too well and need to beef things up. My new snowblower will help, but I'm thinking about also a 1972 Dodge van that I can park on the side of my house, just to start like once a month and let it send chimney signals out to all of the liberal weenies shaking their fists.

What is unusual is the speed at which the C02 is being dumped into the atmosphere and the speed of temperature rise.

Read the children's book the Lorax. Tell me that's a world you want to live in. The point at which we can pollute the world enough for you to care is the point at which it is far far too late. Perhaps you only care about yourself and your own generation. I don't want my children drinking Flint MI water.

Gunny

02-04-2016, 02:25 PM

What is unusual is the speed at which the C02 is being dumped into the atmosphere and the speed of temperature rise.

Read the children's book the Lorax. Tell me that's a world you want to live in. The point at which we can pollute the world enough for you to care is the point at which it is far far too late. Perhaps you only care about yourself and your own generation. I don't want my children drinking Flint MI water.

Have you figured out the part where you lost this argument? I don't even need to tell you from a logical standpoint you're full of it. All these scientific eggheads appear to know more than I do in your own language. I'll just shoot you. Then you won't be wasting my oxygen at all. And you can figure THAT up on a graph. Ten clicks up at 1000 meters will put a hole in your chest the size of a football. I've never bothered to ask but I suspect it don't feel good.

Drummond

02-04-2016, 02:34 PM

Look .. let's finally cut through all the rot, shall we, with just a little dose of commonsense ?

This 'global warming is terrible, We Must Fix It, Pronto' stuff is just all a load of rot. Or, if you prefer, sheer hot air.

Co2 gases released. Other pollutants, ditto. Global temperatures supposedly rising, our earth, allegedly, under severe threat from all of this, And We Must Repair It.

Leaving aside evidence we have of cyclical change that pre-dates our industrial age by millennia, this proving we aren't to blame, and besides, the Earth always adjusts to such changes (!!!) ... the simple point is, Pete, that this IS ALL A SCAM. There is but only one thing we can do, or ever do .. that's to reduce the RATE at which we CONTINUE to pollute. As in ... not add to it, quite so much !! We can't - by slowing pollution actions down - somehow, magically, destroy what already exists, like waving a magic wand !!!

So you see, we truly cannot fix a thing. Anyone saying otherwise is feeding you moonshine. Since so many TRY to ... you know, because it can't be otherwise, that some wider agenda is, MUST BE, in play here. One not showing its true face.

High time it did .. even though, with blinkered Lefties insisting on only seeing what's in front of their noses (i.e stupid propaganda) .. that day is no doubt in the distant future, if at all.

pete311

02-04-2016, 02:45 PM

Have you figured out the part where you lost this argument? I don't even need to tell you from a logical standpoint you're full of it. All these scientific eggheads appear to know more than I do in your own language. I'll just shoot you. Then you won't be wasting my oxygen at all. And you can figure THAT up on a graph. Ten clicks up at 1000 meters will put a hole in your chest the size of a football. I've never bothered to ask but I suspect it don't feel good.

You've lost when you write this incoherent irrelevant babble

pete311

02-04-2016, 02:47 PM

Leaving aside evidence we have of cyclical change that pre-dates our industrial age by millennia (!!!)

Sure and most of those changes took thousands of years or were a result of cataclysmic earth events. What is alarming is the amount of C02 and temperature rise in such a short time which lineup with our human history.

Drummond

02-04-2016, 03:27 PM

Sure and most of those changes took thousands of years or were a result of cataclysmic earth events. What is alarming is the amount of C02 and temperature rise in such a short time which lineup with our human history.

Meaning that only human activity has caused rapid climate change .. really ? You're claiming that ??

See ...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

What this does prove is that other rapid increases have happened in 'pre-history' times, i.e before human activity. YOU CLAIMED OTHERWISE.

But tell me why you've not addressed my central point. Namely, that WE CANNOT FIX ANYTHING, and anyone saying there's a way is scamming you.

I challenge you to prove me wrong. There's a lot of Co2 in the atmosphere because of us ? It's triggering global warming ? OK .. how do we GET RID of that problem ?? By what mechanism will that be finally dealt with .. how DO you destroy Co2 in great quantities, so as to alleviate the problem ?? Do tell ....

And we continue to add to all this. Agreements such as Kyoto were only designed to only address the rate at which we may ADD to the PRESENT so-called 'problem' ... because nothing else IS possible. Yet .. how was that sold to the general public ?

NightTrain

02-04-2016, 03:35 PM

I realize that you think you're being cute by pretending to not understand basic science and throwing out Muppet-like statements that have no basis in reality, but I'll just address a couple of points here - even though I know you have no intention of having an intelligent conversation about this.

Your contradictions are alarming and tell me that either you're very stoned, very stupid or are trolling. You have to understand that everything you've said is within easy reach right here on this board. Claiming one thing and then a few hours later saying the opposite does you no favors. Is it deliberate? Are you self-aware?

[/COLOR][/FONT]Not important on this time scale we're looking at.

Wrong.

It is very important. This is the overwhelming driving force behind our weather cycles on this planet.

This is despite your claim that the wobble has no effect.

Which post did I claim warmer conditions grow ice?
Seriously, dude. Try to remember what you said right here in this thread!

Scroll back, I'm not going to paste your own words in this thread a 3rd time for you.

Water and air temp are not tied inextricably. Air temp from wind patterns can change within hours. Water temp is much more slow.

Wrong. But you had to know that.

The temperature of the ocean plays an important role in atmospheric conditions across the globe. Hurricanes, cyclones, thunderstorms and other weather events can form depending on the temperature of the ocean 53. Monsoons can occur when there is a large temperature differential between land and sea, causing cyclical precipitation and storms 35. Hurricanes and cyclones develop over warm water, where the heat can be rapidly transferred to the air via convection 54. In a similar vein, lake-effect snow and other heavy precipitation conditions can form when cold air flows over a large, warmer body of water 55. The ocean also interacts with the atmosphere to create El Niño and La Niña events. El Niño describes the warming of the Pacific Ocean due to a lack of wind, which alters the depth of the thermocline. This warming in turn affects weather and temperature patterns across the globe 35. La Niña is the opposite condition of the ocean, where temperatures are cooler than normal, typically with reverse impacts on the weather 35. These events are irregular, occurring ever 2-7 years. They can last anywhere from 9 months to a couple years, depending on the strength of the episode 35.

http://www.fondriest.com/environmental-measurements/parameters/water-quality/water-temperature/

Before you embarrass yourself further, read up on a few fundamentals of the relationship of Water & Air temperature.

Then, you need to do a bit of research on the concept of Thermal Transfer. Google is loaded with over 10 million results on the first topic alone.

Happy reading!

The explanation I've read is it's due to changing wind patterns.

You need to choose your friends, books and websites more wisely. You were off to a good start with a couple of them, but it quickly became clear to everyone that you didn't actually read nor understand what those websites were talking about. Basing your argument on the title from Google will bite you in the ass. Which is what happened.

I can't read that little image and I'm not a climate scientist so I can't explain the earth's climate history. Can you explain it? If not, then it is useless for this discussion.

If you can't grasp even the most basic functions of your computer allowing you to zoom in, wtf are you doing trying to discuss complex cyclic weather phenomena on a global scale?

Now that I think about it, your behavior is becoming more clear.

The chart shows the Little Ice Age and the overall spike in Earth's temperature starting in 1600. 290 years later, CO2 also spiked. This means that the earth's temp shot up in a massive way without any benefit of increased CO2 "global warming greenhouse gas" being a player whatsoever. It did this from the Sun, it's output, the wobble and our orbit.

Psst : Windows key and +. Or Ctrl + mouse scroll. You're welcome.

Climate scientists aren't day traders, what is important is the long term trend. 5 year ice is still down 50% from 83 or 87 whatever, I removed the image I can't see anymore.

Yes, long term is crucial to understanding what happens. Attaboy.

Now explain the 500 million year graph I provided you.

Either I had nothing to say, didn't think it was interesting or I'm frustrated with replying using the ancient software that doesn't use multiquote well and it takes me a long time to format all these damn quotes. It's really a pain in the ass.

Weird that no one else has had that problem. Now that you know how to zoom in and out on the Interwebs, do you need some helpful pointers on how to use one of the most common form of message board software in the world?

Just ask, Petey. I'm here to help.

One last thing :

After all, you claim that CO2 is THE driving force of our weather patterns, right?

I have not made this claim

You haven't?

Nearly every glacier is receding. I've personally been to a few and had to walk a couple miles extra to get to the base than people even 10 years ago. Here is the arctic ice review for 2015 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Honestly I don't know what part is controversial for you? C02 is a greenhouse gas. Over the past 100 years it's spiked and all signs are to modern industry.

I don't for a minute buy into man made global warming. I don't care how many glaciers melt, it's not caused by man.

What then do you think is responsible for the doubling of C02 in the last 100 years?

Mmmmhmmm. Besides the fact that you've been running around insisting that manmade CO2 is driving Global Warming?

What is unusual is the speed at which the C02 is being dumped into the atmosphere and the speed of temperature rise.

Here's a novel concept, Petey : Pick your argument and stick with it. You might even win a debate someday using that sneaky tactic!

For a guy that has run around this board calling everyone stoooopid for years, you sure have a peculiar way of setting the bar.

Gunny

02-04-2016, 03:46 PM

You've lost when you write this incoherent irrelevant babble

What exactly am I lost about? My statement is completely logical and based on fact. Yours is based on a dumbass theory. Well I got a theory I can grow hair. Only I seem to be bald but wouldn't really know since I shave my head.

You 're quick to point a finger at the rest of us while you believe in contrived bullshit. Bet you believe in the Big Bang too. SO tell me ... how do you have a "big Bang" without a God to make it go boom? Science says you can't create something from nothing. But that dumbass theory does EXACTLY that.

Get on back to me when you can.

pete311

02-04-2016, 08:27 PM

Meaning that only human activity has caused rapid climate change .. really ? You're claiming that ??

See ...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Not me, but climate scientists. I don't think you read the entire article.

What this does prove is that other rapid increases have happened in 'pre-history' times, i.e before human activity. YOU CLAIMED OTHERWISE.

The article states that we know why there was rapid change and all those reasons aren't in play now.

But tell me why you've not addressed my central point. Namely, that WE CANNOT FIX ANYTHING, and anyone saying there's a way is scamming you.

Why do you say this? Are you saying this in a theoretical way or practical way?

I challenge you to prove me wrong. There's a lot of Co2 in the atmosphere because of us ? It's triggering global warming ? OK .. how do we GET RID of that problem ?? By what mechanism will that be finally dealt with .. how DO you destroy Co2 in great quantities, so as to alleviate the problem ?? Do tell ....

And we continue to add to all this. Agreements such as Kyoto were only designed to only address the rate at which we may ADD to the PRESENT so-called 'problem' ... because nothing else IS possible. Yet .. how was that sold to the general public ?

I am not a climate scientist nor an energy engineer, but I'd say we start with funding green energy research and stop cutting down forests. I think it's pretty clear that all that can be done is hope to delay with emissions reductions. The general public won't have enough will to change until it's too late. That may not be for another 40-50 years, but really, it's not that far away.

pete311

02-04-2016, 08:28 PM

What exactly am I lost about? My statement is completely logical and based on fact.

Your statement was that you're going to shoot me. Lots of logic and fact there.... well hopefully not.

pete311

02-04-2016, 08:53 PM

It is very important. This is the overwhelming driving force behind our weather cycles on this planet.

This is despite your claim that the wobble has no effect.

The claim is on global warming, not specifically weather cycles and it's not my claim, it's NASA's, argue with them.

Seriously, dude. Try to remember what you said right here in this thread!

Scroll back, I'm not going to paste your own words in this thread a 3rd time for you.

"Antarctic ice has been increasing because of changing winds while the sea is actually warming"

Where in that statement do I say warm water creates ice? The wind is colder, water is warmer. Antarctica is land, thus the wind has more influence than the water. Thanks for wasting my time.

Wrong. But you had to know that.

Happy reading!

Again, the NASA source I posted explained the increase of ice in Antarctica as a result of changing wind patterns. Take it up with them. Good luck.

The chart shows the Little Ice Age and the overall spike in Earth's temperature starting in 1600. 290 years later, CO2 also spiked. This means that the earth's temp shot up in a massive way without any benefit of increased CO2 "global warming greenhouse gas" being a player whatsoever. It did this from the Sun, it's output, the wobble and our orbit.

I've never said CO2 was the only possible way for the earth's temperature to rise.

You haven't?

This seems to be an issue of semantics. I am not aware of CO2 directly changing weather patterns. It's just a greenhouse gas that traps radiation. In turn this extra radiation has an effect on weather, yes.

We can debate all day long and it's good fun but your level of asshole-dom is really getting tired. Just debate straight up and leave out the douchebagness.

NightTrain

02-04-2016, 10:25 PM

I think I'm done here, Petey.

It was fun watching you hold the wrong end of a chainsaw. :laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

02-04-2016, 10:35 PM

cookoo cookoo...Go back to your bunker. I'll tell you when it's all over. (probably not)

Petey, I wouldn't trust you if you told me water was wet.
With the Internet and GOOGLE SEARCH AT YOUR DISPOSAL AND YOU STILL BELIEVE IN THAT SCAM , TELLS ME YOU ARE EITHER RETARDED OR ELSE DELIBERATELY LYING.--TYR

pete311

02-04-2016, 11:34 PM

January just set a record low for arctic ice and was 13 degrees warmer than average

http://arcticjournal.com/climate/2126/low-start

NightTrain

02-05-2016, 12:07 AM

January just set a record low for arctic ice and was 13 degrees warmer than average

http://arcticjournal.com/climate/2126/low-start

What do you attribute that to, Petey?

pete311

02-05-2016, 12:11 AM

What do you attribute that to, Petey?

The article suggests an artic oscillation

NightTrain

02-05-2016, 01:02 AM

The article suggests an artic oscillation

Well done. :thumb:

Gunny

02-05-2016, 03:49 AM

January just set a record low for arctic ice and was 13 degrees warmer than average

http://arcticjournal.com/climate/2126/low-start

Somebody needs to point that out to my back porch. I've spent most of this winter in the damned 30s. I'm not sure what part of the rest of us normally functioning people have been freezing our asses off all winter you don't get, but your graphs and links ain't making my world any damned warmer.

You can't fix a problem if you can't identify it. Simple math (that you think most of us don't understand) the Earth is going through yet another cyclical climate change. You, peasant little insect called "Man" can't do jack about it. So how about what we can do is quit paying an industry full of chicken littles billions of dollars to tell us we're going up 1.3 degrees?

Drummond

02-05-2016, 06:08 AM

Not me, but climate scientists. I don't think you read the entire article.

Not all climate scientists see this the same way. Or do you claim they do ?

The article states that we know why there was rapid change and all those reasons aren't in play now.

Evasive. Isn't it ? As I said before ...

What this does prove is that other rapid increases have happened in 'pre-history' times, i.e before human activity. YOU CLAIMED OTHERWISE.

A scenario can be invented. The mere fact of its invention does not validate it.

Why do you say this? Are you saying this in a theoretical way or practical way?

I say it because it's TRUE. 'Pollutants', and 'Greenhouse Gases', do (we're told) already exist in the atmosphere, in large quantities. By what method, or mechanism, do we get rid of them ? ALL WE CAN ACTUALLY DO IS ADD TO WHAT'S THERE, and try to control the rate at which we do. Agreements such as Kyoto only try to achieve that end, because that's all that is possible. YET .. Kyoto was sold to everybody as being a stepping-stone to tackling the 'ongoing problem' in a meaningful, REMEDIAL, way.

That's where the 'scam' comes in .. the illusory rot which says that just by reducing the rate at which we 'pollute' that in itself holds the key to dealing with pollution already in existence. WHICH IS NONSENSE.

If you contend otherwise, then, Pete, your task is clear. Prove to us all that there IS a way for us to eradicate the gases already in the atmosphere, those which feed 'global warming'. Describe the method. Show us how it can be successfully applied. Either that .. or, HAVE THE DECENCY TO ADMIT THAT A SCAM IS BEING PERPETRATED.

I am not a climate scientist nor an energy engineer, but I'd say we start with funding green energy research and stop cutting down forests. I think it's pretty clear that all that can be done is hope to delay with emissions reductions. The general public won't have enough will to change until it's too late. That may not be for another 40-50 years, but really, it's not that far away.

I think you're being evasive again. I want my above challenge, my questioning, answered, with the solution which would REALLY help. If you cannot provide it, then have the decency to acknowledge THAT IT DOES NOT EXIST !

pete311

02-05-2016, 10:24 AM

Not all climate scientists see this the same way. Or do you claim they do ?

Prove to us all that there IS a way for us to eradicate the gases already in the atmosphere, those which feed 'global warming'. Describe the method. Show us how it can be successfully applied.!

You can't and don't want to eradicate gases. They all play a important role, but only when in a healthy balance. Stop deforestation, reduce air pollutants, invest in green technologies, adopt a harmony with nature attitude.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

02-05-2016, 10:48 AM

Stop deforestation, reduce air pollutants, invest in green technologies, adopt a harmony with nature attitude.
^^^^ Some of that is worthy to do but not because of a damn lying scam .. one used to steal way our freedoms.....

Stop lying. You lie when you post falsified data or when you excuse others from doing so.
In your blindness and stupidity you walk as a damn fool.
TRUTH doesn't phase you, for you as a lib are immune from it. So typical. Sad...-Tyr

Drummond

02-05-2016, 12:17 PM

You can't and don't want to eradicate gases. They all play a important role, but only when in a healthy balance. Stop deforestation, reduce air pollutants, invest in green technologies, adopt a harmony with nature attitude.

Tyr, as ever, has got this exactly right. You're 'on message', aren't you, and robotically enslaved to it. Such is the fate of the loyal Leftie, only seeing what you're expected to see, following the agenda set out by your comrades !! So, what happened about any thought of TACKLING the EXISTING pollutants ? Or, is it suddenly the case that there's no 'need' to (BECAUSE IN TRUTH, YOU CAN'T) .. ???

If there's no need to, then the scam is proven. If there's no WAY to, then again, the scam IS PROVEN, because then, what's the point ?

All else is mere damage limitation, concerned with the rate at which we ADD to the, ahem, 'problem'. Which I suspect is nothing of the kind .. if the scam is a scam (and how isn't it ??), then much if not all to do with it is just bound to be bogus.

Cyclical climate change says so, in fact. Why not admit it, and be done with all of this ?

Because a fantasist Leftie line dictates to you that you dare not think for YOURSELF, and see beyond make-believe cloud-cuckooland ??

It's hard for us Right-wingers to understand you Lefties. Are you aware of the falsehoods inherent in your argument ? Do you do an Orwellian take on 'reality', and simultaneously perceive, yet do not perceive AT ALL, what the truth truly is ??

Do explain. I'd really like to know !

pete311

02-05-2016, 01:24 PM

Drummond

02-05-2016, 02:16 PM

The only person I'm responding to is Nighttrain because although he's a total prick, at least he tries to have some resemblance of an intelligent, coherent argument, relativity free from paranoid conspiratorial delusions and embarrassing biased buffoon-like ramblings. It's no wonder some of you are relegated from reasonable society and cast into this cesspool compound of similar nutjobs who blindly cheerlead each other in one big Cro-Magnon anti-science, anti-humanity, circle jerk.

Your choice, of course. Thing is, though, that there's just so much of the truth you can take. Isn't there ? Then again .. I've been very direct in issuing a challenge, and of course, you've needed to duck it (as you're doing right now). Be honest. Your chief motivation is to avoid that which I've been trying to insist you do NOT avoid.

It's called THE TRUTH.

If there's an excess of greenhouse gases doing damage (I emphasise: I do not believe it), you've no way whatever of explaining how they're going to be tackled ... this meaning that IF the doom-mongers are correct, then the damage IS done, IS irreversible. But then, you Lefties cannot allow such a belief to take hold. So ... since you're cornered, anyway ... you're just copping out.

I do understand. I would do, after all .. I've seen it all too often.

-- Sad. When you could just accept truth instead of fiction. Oh, well. Be happy with your delusions. The rest of us will live in the real world.

Drummond

02-05-2016, 02:51 PM

By the way, Petey ... I noted your descent into much-needed abusiveness. The last refuge of the beaten Leftie ? How sad.

Like I said ... I've seen it before. Quite a few times, in fact. Now -- if only I could remember precisely who it was who'd given me those memories, in particular, of such unmistakeably characteristic Leftieness in action .... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

NightTrain

02-05-2016, 03:18 PM

Nighttrain because ... he's a total prick

:thanks:

Awesome! Not every day I get called a prick, which is a sad state of affairs. I used to average at least one Prick label per day back in the USMB days... must be losing my touch.

Drummond

02-05-2016, 03:26 PM

:thanks:

Awesome! Not every day I get called a prick, which is a sad state of affairs. I used to average at least one Prick label per day back in the USMB days... must be losing my touch.

Coming from a delusional Leftie, one rather sadly cornered by the weight of sheer truth he's having to face (yet desperate not to) ... it's a bit of a badge of honour ... :laugh:

Do I feel sorry for him ?

... nah ... :laugh:

Gunny

02-05-2016, 04:00 PM

The only person I'm responding to is Nighttrain because although he's a total prick, at least he tries to have some resemblance of an intelligent, coherent argument, relativity free from paranoid conspiratorial delusions and embarrassing biased buffoon-like ramblings. It's no wonder some of you are relegated from reasonable society and cast into this cesspool compound of similar nutjobs who blindly cheerlead each other in one big Cro-Magnon anti-science, anti-humanity, circle jerk.

Play victim much? I'm a sniper and an electrician. You think you understand science better than I do? I think you're dreaming. Everything I've done in life has required science. I'm also Water Survival Qualified and know how to jump out of perfectly good airplanes. I can also whip your ass on a mat, a basketball court or a chess board. People aren't stupid because they don't believe the same as you nor possess the same skills. People are stupid when they think what they consider their skills are the ONLY answer. Being ignorant and not listening is NOT a skill just because you can.

I'm smarter at what I do than a lot of people on this board. They're smarter than me at what they do. When you are actually smart is when you are smart enough to know the difference between the two. Point: Guess why Marines let the Navy drive the boats? Cuz we suck at it. Lesson1 Day 1, the squids drive the boats. Conversely, you don't see them running all over the beach getting in our way since we're a lot better at breaking stuff than they are.

You need some humility and to know your role.