Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That there are STILL those that believe this fraud of Man Made Global Warming is testament to the fact that some people can be convinced to believe anything, and once they do "believe", no amount of reason or evidence will make the slightest difference to them. They will continue to "believe" regardless of how inane and counter intuitive their belief is, and no matter what irrefutable evidence you present to them.
Even with the fundamental premise of increased atmospheric CO2 being the catalyst to global warming having been thoroughly exposed as a fraud (due to the inverse relationship which shows such increases in CO2 is a RESULT of warming, with a lag time of 800 years, and consequently CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE THE CAUSE), still they cling to their belief, and call anyone who doesn't agree, deniers, or even more ironic, ignorant.
Now if you cannot convince someone to even consider, let alone grasp the raw logic of Cause & Effect which requires "Cause" to come first, any further attempts to get through to these types, regardless of the volume of supporting evidence, is an exercise in futility. You simply cannot "reason" with unreasonable minds.
When the facts are faked, where does one put their faith? ...In those that faked the facts?
I personally don't have one of those faith issues. I do see one camp lying their butts off to sell a very profitable agenda. What so many are accepting as fact is nothing more than argumentum ad verecundiam. Let's not confuse truth with fact, particularly when falsifiable fact appears diametrically opposed to the truth, or the proverbial "consensus".
You are correct in stating that evidence is irrelevant to the faithful but you may just be confused as to who's falling for what dogma.
You've been taught to reject something you don't understand (science) and, instead, turn it into a economic argument (again, something you don't understand but think you do)
This is a typical train of thought for those who don't understand science but feel comfortable discussing it as some grand economic Ponzi scheme to "steal" money while those responsible for climate change make more money than any industry in world history.
Oh come on: haven't you got anything better than putting your fingers in your ears and saying,"Lalalalal I can't hear you."
Fact: the greenhouse gas effect is real. Even Roy Spencer, the darling of the deniers, accepts it
Fact: Man has increased the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the sea
Fact: there is a continuing upward trend in the global temperature Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots
(Note that temperature is only a proxy for the total heat content of the earth system, which is the most importent metric.)
Fact: I now anticipate a flurry of well known debunked denier bumper sticker slogons or inane 2 second sound bites. Please check here Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined for the most common ones so you don't reveal your lack of knowledge and/or understanding.
Just because I like to talk science.
I saw in the above post a link to skepticalscience blog…. So I followed it. It was nice. It has an article about sea level rise… that made me start thinking about the subject.
As I recall there is a pretty interesting fact that seems to be beyond the warmist ability to comprehend.
That being we have seen a 2mm sea level rise for the last 7000 years….
the Warmists have been screaming about sea level rise for years. All we have seen is a steady rise for 7000 years and no increase even in this most recent warming period since 1980. Yet we hear how things are just awful and getting worse…. Except they aren’t…
Oh and it should be pointed out that the story on Skeptical Science points to a NASA news release suggesting that the recent drop in sea level is a result of all that water being rained down on the Amazon and Pakistan…well…errr…. Uhm…. Uh…. That isn’t exactly a “Scientific Paper” Mr Turboblocke was ranting about wanting to see from the “deniers”…
That there are STILL those that believe this fraud of Man Made Global Warming is testament to the fact that some people can be convinced to believe anything, and once they do "believe", no amount of reason or evidence will make the slightest difference to them. They will continue to "believe" regardless of how inane and counter intuitive their belief is, and no matter what irrefutable evidence you present to them.
Even with the fundamental premise of increased atmospheric CO2 being the catalyst to global warming having been thoroughly exposed as a fraud (due to the inverse relationship which shows such increases in CO2 is a RESULT of warming, with a lag time of 800 years, and consequently CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE THE CAUSE), still they cling to their belief, and call anyone who doesn't agree, deniers, or even more ironic, ignorant.
Now if you cannot convince someone to even consider, let alone grasp the raw logic of Cause & Effect which requires "Cause" to come first, any further attempts to get through to these types, regardless of the volume of supporting evidence, is an exercise in futility. You simply cannot "reason" with unreasonable minds.
b b b b b but DUDE!
Tiljander and Yamal have "proven" that there was no Medieval Warm Period 800 years ago...
As I said, soot will cause some snow melt. but you have to take the affect on albedo and balance that against soot in the atmosphere blocking the incoming radiation from the sun.
The soot in the air heats the air. It keeps the sunlight from reaching the ground. In the air it is still black. Water clouds are white. They reflect sunlight back into space. A vary small amount of soot in snow has a large effect on melt rates. Clean white snow is the most light reflective surface on earth. Soot is one of the darkest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
while melt may happen as a result of dirt on the snow, that does not mean the actual climate has warmed.
melt the snow a few days sooner in the spring and have it stick a few days later in the fall and you have changed the climate. It takes time to get it going but ounce you start it takes on a life of its own. A positive feed back loop is what it is called.
You've been taught to reject something you don't understand (science) and, instead, turn it into a economic argument (again, something you don't understand but think you do)
This is a typical train of thought for those who don't understand science but feel comfortable discussing it as some grand economic Ponzi scheme to "steal" money while those responsible for climate change make more money than any industry in world history.
Here's your sign.
You are trying to poison the well by using an ad hominem attack against me. To use phraseology I keep hearing from your side of the fence and common with the youth... Fail!
In the future, when you wish to engage in a battle of wit, you might consider first arming yourself.
I don't put anyone on ignore but I do generally ignore your posts as they have nothing of relevance. But, since you aimed this one at me directly I thought it prudent to point out your error. I will likely not respond to any more of your non-nonsensical diatribes so if you choose to get in a last word, feel free. But know that my lack of response is in no way a victory for you but more an indication that I just don't take you seriously.
I may debate an issue with GregW with whom I generally disagree with politically but he is able to carry on a lively and intelligent debate and is therefore worthy of respect. You however...
Fact your link to the Surface Temp analysis is awesome! it points out that since 1998 there has been very little warming. However during that same time, there has been additional CO2 added to the atmosphere... what gives? Also your link shows a general rise in temperature from the 1880's. No one suggests that the rise before about 1970 or so was man caused. Yet the man caused rise from 1980 to 1998 follows the same trend found from 1880 to about 1950. interesting
.
Bless, it didn't take long for a cherry picker to arrive on the scene did it?
a) Re: your "little warming since 1998".
- AGW is a trend superimposed on natural variation. Natural variation can go up and down. The AGW component only goes up. 1998 was a year when natural warming went up a lot: it was a particularly strong El Nino year. To test how valid your point is try different starting dates and report back.
- You seem to be using a model that says all warming is due to greenhouse gases so that the temperature should religiously follow change in GHG and natural variation no long applies. Simple but not actually based on what most people describe as "reality".
b) Why is it interesting that a trend before AGW kicked in matches warming from 1980-1998? You've given yourself so much freedom to cherry pick the periods to match. You didn't even limit yourself to two equal length periods did you? Talk about loading the dice in your favour. For those who don't understand the dishonesty behind this cherry pick... and from the number of responses condemning it, that looks like most of you:
- he chooses a 19 year period 1980-1998 (inclusive). Between 1880 and 2011 there are 114 periods that are 19 years long. So what are the odds of finding 2 trends that match? Pretty good. But he stacks the dice further in his favour by giving himself the choice of any length period: 115 18 year periods, 116 17 year periods, 113 20 year periods etc
Oh come on: haven't you got anything better than putting your fingers in your ears and saying,"Lalalalal I can't hear you."
Fact: the greenhouse gas effect is real. Even Roy Spencer, the darling of the deniers, accepts it
Fact: Man has increased the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the sea
Fact: there is a continuing upward trend in the global temperature Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots
(Note that temperature is only a proxy for the total heat content of the earth system, which is the most importent metric.)
Fact: I now anticipate a flurry of well known debunked denier bumper sticker slogons or inane 2 second sound bites. Please check here Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined for the most common ones so you don't reveal your lack of knowledge and/or understanding.
My God. It is impossible to try to talk to liberals, as they do cover their eyes and ears, and say ,"Noooooooooooo".
I have published over tweny papers in the peer reviewed scientific literature and know a little bit more about what constitutes a good study, as opposed to the expert knowledge of a layman. The cult of "global warming" is an academic embarrassment and is far from good science as one can get. However, to the ill informed, it is taken as gospel truth. How many papers have you published? Have you had any training in ANY scientific endeavor? Have you had any training in statistics? Have you reviewed papers for publication in ANY journal? Then, one may ask, how the hell do you think you know what you are talking about?????????
These "armchair scientists" simply look ridiculous by embracing a fanciful, unproven notion of global warming, despite the science. The problem is that they do not even realize how wrong they are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
