Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,651
#3,651
tumscalcium said:
Considering I've been on every continent before my 30th birthday I'd say I'm quite aware of the world. Other than asking for the temperature in Savannah where have I claimed that only the southeast US is all that matters? Should I ask for Spokane temps to make you happy? That's where I'm from. The Philippines? What the Hong Kong area was like in March of 1200?

When will you learn that the earth is not 100 years old? That's all the data we have for specific global temperatures. 100 years. Everything else is speculation with no proof. Do you know how accurate global temperature instruments and their calculations were from back then? I'm sure they were magnificent. Ice core samples from Antarctica are cute and all, but don't seem to have thermometers in them. Just some gas and you don't know when specifically they were formed. You went from complaining about 30-year periods to 30 day periods. The world is bigger than your life. Get over it.

Now, let's talk about you. Why are you so worried about change? Isn't that what European liberals such as yourself say make the world better? Why are you so intolerant towards weather? What happened to you when you were younger?

Why does the whole idea of climate scare you?
Click to expand...

:( you almost hurt my feelings

Tums that wasn’t directly at you- several posters like to quote anecdotal evidence about how cold it was in Bucksnort during the last polar vortex.

Climate change doesn’t scare me. I’m confident that people will overcome it with or without your help or acknowledgment. Nowhere have I said the sky is falling; I’m just telling it like it is.

We don’t need to know the position of every atom in the universe to make an informed decision about climate change. You’ve shown you don’t know squat about paleoclimatology so you’re in no position to judge its merits. Of course you’re not just shrugging off paleoclimatology, you’re also discounting established physics (we’re talking 1800s), chemistry, astronomy, … basically every physical science. But keep fightin the good fight! The SandVols and Bigorangetrains of VN got yo back

Conspiracy.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,652
#3,652
BartW said:
:( you almost hurt my feelings

Tums that wasn’t directly at you- several posters like to quote anecdotal evidence about how cold it was in Bucksnort during the last polar vortex.

Climate change doesn’t scare me. I’m confident that people will overcome it with or without your help or acknowledgment. Nowhere have I said the sky is falling; I’m just telling it like it is.

We don’t need to know the position of every atom in the universe to make an informed decision about climate change. You’ve shown you don’t know squat about paleoclimatology so you’re in no position to judge its merits. Of course you’re not just shrugging off paleoclimatology, you’re also discounting established physics (we’re talking 1800s), chemistry, astronomy, … basically every physical science. But keep fightin the good fight! The SandVols and Bigorangetrains of VN got yo back

Conspiracy.jpg
Click to expand...

Still.... No proof. Your representation of paleoclimatology is laughable considering you still can't produce specific temperatures. You're making the real scientists look worse than they already do.

Great, another meaningless graph coming.

I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm trying to help. I want to know who wronged you. I want to know why you hate weather so much. And of course people will get through whatever it is you're scared of. There's nothing scary going on.....

And if you're sure people will get over this boogeyman then why are you still complaining about it? You're not making sense. I'm worried about you. Stop with the conspiracies and come meet logic and reason.
 
Last edited:
#3,655
#3,655
Sandvol said:
One-does-not-simply.jpg
Click to expand...
You discovered memes!

Sort of funny, but I’d imagine (hope) most residents of LA attended the climate march in LA. There were marches in cities around the word including Seattle. And inb4 smartass comment, no I didn’t attend. Seahawks-Broncos game was on and, contrary to your stereotyping, I’m really not the activist sort. The only marching I’ve ever done was in band. So to answer the one decent part of tum’s post (again)
tumscalcium said:
And if you're sure people will get over this boogeyman then why are you still complaining about it?
Click to expand...

I’m here because VN is really the only forum I frequent. I refuse to let it be a transmitter of unchallenged disinformation on this important and misunderstood topic. It reflects poorly on our alma mater. As a scientist (in the private sector) with degrees in the extremely relevant fields of physics and geology I would feel irresponsible not refuting the nonsense some of y’all post.

On top of that, getting science deniers’ panties in a wad is entertaining as ****.
LouderVol said:
Global Analysis - Annual 1997 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

nice little chart there. was cold in 1900s warm in the 2000s. on average that averages out to average.
Click to expand...
You’re a mathematical wizard :)

fyi that temperature anomaly is relative to the 1961-1990 average. Circular reasoning is circular.
 
MG1968 said:
*Please note: grey areas represent missing data

both poles are shown in grey, how can there be missing data when all we hear about arctic sea ice, ice shelves, and so on?

also, most of that departure is 1 to 2 degrees Celsius and Florida is still not underwater

it must suck to be such an alarmist and have nothing to show for your alarmism but the mockery of fellow Vol fans
Click to expand...
Your mockery tickles.

fYi in your figure the temperature anomaly was relative to the 1981-2010 average. And not many people live at the poles... those measurements are made by remote sensing.

I suppose you missed the rising tide links. Here's another:

Miami Finds Itself Ankle-Deep in Climate Change Debate
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,656
#3,656
BartW said:
You’re a mathematical wizard :)

fyi that temperature anomaly is relative to the 1961-1990 average. Circular reasoning is circular.
 
Click to expand...

thank you. i just love pulling some of the vodoo that you do.

so it was colder from 1990 until about 1998 than it was from 1961-1990. a decade of information that goes against the hypothesis that it is humans constantly screwing it up, and not mother nature on the rag.
 
#3,657
#3,657
BartW said:
You discovered memes!

Sort of funny, but I’d imagine (hope) most residents of LA attended the climate march in LA. There were marches in cities around the word including Seattle. And inb4 smartass comment, no I didn’t attend. Seahawks-Broncos game was on and, contrary to your stereotyping, I’m really not the activist sort. The only marching I’ve ever done was in band. So to answer the one decent part of tum’s post (again)


I’m here because VN is really the only forum I frequent. I refuse to let it be a transmitter of unchallenged disinformation on this important and misunderstood topic. It reflects poorly on our alma mater. As a scientist (in the private sector) with degrees in the extremely relevant fields of physics and geology I would feel irresponsible not refuting the nonsense some of y’all post.

On top of that, getting science deniers’ panties in a wad is entertaining as ****.

You’re a mathematical wizard :)

fyi that temperature anomaly is relative to the 1961-1990 average. Circular reasoning is circular.
 

Your mockery tickles.

fYi in your figure the temperature anomaly was relative to the 1981-2010 average. And not many people live at the poles... those measurements are made by remote sensing.

I suppose you missed the rising tide links. Here's another:

Miami Finds Itself Ankle-Deep in Climate Change Debate
Click to expand...

Here's some data for ya Bart:

Record Early Double-Digit Snow in Maine After Record Early Snow Hits South Carolina - weather.com
 
#3,662
#3,662
I can't believe the EPA is not counting nuclear production in it's new guidelines for carbon reductions. I feel like that's the most obvious left-wing lunacy shown yet, and it makes it clear that nothing being done is about global warming. It's only about rewarding wind and solar companies.

Look at the headlines for Germany's emissions if you want to see what is up next here.
 
#3,664
#3,664
Sandvol said:
Here's some data for ya Bart:

Record Early Double-Digit Snow in Maine After Record Early Snow Hits South Carolina - weather.com
Click to expand...
govols/cc said:
That's weather. Weather has nothing to do with climate. Lol
Click to expand...
508mikey said:
some nice global warming coming already Arctic Outbreak Will Bring the Coldest Air of the Season Next Week - weather.com
Click to expand...

Anecdotal Evidence

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim… The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts... Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence.[6][7]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,665
#3,665
 
LouderVol said:
thank you. i just love pulling some of the vodoo that you do.

so it was colder from 1990 until about 1998 than it was from 1961-1990. a decade of information that goes against the hypothesis that it is humans constantly screwing it up, and not mother nature on the rag.
Click to expand...
You must be misreading your figure. It shows the temperature anomaly (relative to the 1961-1990 average) was ~ +0.25 in 1990 and +0.42 in 1997. All above “average”
BigOrangeTrain said:
Berkeley Lab scientists identify new driver behind Arctic warming
Click to expand...
LouderVol said:
why would a more efficient transmitter trap more energy?
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t. From the article,
Despite its importance in the planet's energy budget, it's difficult to measure a surface's effectiveness in emitting far-infrared energy. In addition, its influence on the planet's climate is not well represented in climate models. The models assume that all surfaces are 100 percent efficient in emitting far-infrared energy.

That's not the case. The scientists found that open oceans are much less efficient than sea ice when it comes to emitting in the far-infrared region of the spectrum. This means that the Arctic Ocean traps much of the energy in far-infrared radiation, a previously unknown phenomenon that is likely contributing to the warming of the polar climate.
Click to expand...

Good job BOT posting a legitimate scientific article :clap:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,666
#3,666
BartW said:
Anecdotal Evidence

The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim… The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts... Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence.[6][7]
Click to expand...

speak english
 
#3,667
#3,667
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,668
#3,668
BartW said:
"It's cold somewhere" is anecdotal evidence.

"On average, it's hotter everywhere" is statistical evidence. For example,
Click to expand...

But there's still no evidence or proof that this warming/cooling is caused, or even exacerbated, by man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,669
#3,669
Weezy said:
I can't believe the EPA is not counting nuclear production in it's new guidelines for carbon reductions. I feel like that's the most obvious left-wing lunacy shown yet, and it makes it clear that nothing being done is about global warming. It's only about rewarding wind and solar companies.

Look at the headlines for Germany's emissions if you want to see what is up next here.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine at UT wrote an article on this topic:

Unintended Anti-Nuclear Consequences Lurking in the EPA Clean Power Plan

It seems hydro gets shafted too. And gas is a winner! That crap better get straightened out. Luckily we have Vols on top of it representin at EPA hearings :loco:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,673
#3,673
BartW said:
history of science, yay!!
Click to expand...

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at FrontPage Magazine detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the political left; he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on Anne Coulter, Michael Moore, Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann, which helped demonstrate that Wikipedia has a leftist bias, and he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.[1]

For example, Swindle wrote:

"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore​. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"[2]

The project was initiated by atheist and entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and the agnostic philosophy professor Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001.[3] An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".[4] Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."[5] Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.[6] In December of 2010, Christian apologist JP Holding called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".[7] Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.[8]
 
#3,674
#3,674
Lol cry me a river! History does not have a liberal bias. What part of this entry do you disagree with?

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]

In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
Click to expand...

Here is John Tyndall's note to the Royal Society in 1859 and subsequent paper On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction. The greenhouse effect is very established physics, I promise. Get a spectroscope and try it out yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top