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.
As it is impossible to attribute the Russian heatwave to global warming, it is also impossible to say for certain that global warming had zero to do with it as well. At this point, we cannot say whether there are trends towards more frequent heatwaves or not.
There was no appreciable ability to predict the occurrence (meaning the models used to attribute climate occurrence did not have any ability to evaluate for prediction of such an occurrence), nor did the trend show any significance in that of the 130 year analysis to which is often attributed as a abnormal occurrence within this specific instance.
So while you surely can speculate as such, the onus is not on the norm to prove that an abnormal exists, but that the suggestion of an abnormal and causal relation be evident, to which you concede is not. Basically, what you seem to be implying by your response is that it is simply unknown and therefore is a possible attribute, but such reasoning is not supported in the slightest, nor scientific by any level. Using the "unknown" as a means to suggest support is absurd, especially in this case where the occurrence is not outside of any abnormal means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
Back to the thread as a whole - I think that several comments presented in here are just startling to me and really shows the lack of scientific knowledge among the general population in this country. No, this has nothing to do with whether you accept or refute anthropogenic global warming. But simply the analysis and level of understanding of things is quite poor.
Agreed, though this issue was brought to the political forefront and argued under such basis, so it is natural people would respond in kind.
Though it would help if you were more specific about a certain objection to such.
Now, I've already defined for you the reason why this entire Man Made CO2 / climate change scheme is impossible, due to the relationship between global warming and the subsequent rise in CO2 levels that take place after warming periods. Basic common sense of the variety that allows children to be potty trained understands the basics of cause and effect ... realizing that for something to "cause" something else to happen ... the "cause" has to happen FIRST ... not afterward. What part of this simple formula has you so confused?
One word - feedbacks. You fail to acknowledge that when surface temperatures increase, including over the global oceans, CO2 is degassed more efficiently, increasing CO2 levels and thus contributing to the warming. The precipice for the warming in the past climate was indeed orbital changes, but it doesn't have to be. The bottom line is - if a forcing causes warming on the planet, CO2 can be more efficiently released and increase the level of warming. That forcing can be solar variability, orbital changes, or increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Orbital changes are not responsible for the recent warming.
I find it disturbing that climate researchers are under such scrutiny to the point where people are plowing through their e-mails hoping to come up with dirt, yet skeptics such as the one quoted in the OP can distort, fabricate and outright lie about data, yet their followers don't bat an eye.
I suggest these people follow the advice of Richard Feynman:
Quote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
I find it disturbing that climate researchers are under such scrutiny to the point where people are plowing through their e-mails hoping to come up with dirt, yet skeptics such as the one quoted in the OP can distort, fabricate and outright lie about data, yet their followers don't bat an eye.
I suggest these people follow the advice of Richard Feynman:
What specifically is your objection, can you note such and detail the issues of your complaint or was your comment that of a generalized rebuttal meant to be unspecific so as to avoid having to provide any relevant defense to its claim?
One word - feedbacks. You fail to acknowledge that when surface temperatures increase, including over the global oceans, CO2 is degassed more efficiently, increasing CO2 levels and thus contributing to the warming. The precipice for the warming in the past climate was indeed orbital changes, but it doesn't have to be. The bottom line is - if a forcing causes warming on the planet, CO2 can be more efficiently released and increase the level of warming. That forcing can be solar variability, orbital changes, or increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Orbital changes are not responsible for the recent warming.
And this is where a lot of the discussion and disagreement exists. The fact is, we do not agree on feedback's, nor can we specify the consistency of such. Can you explain the divergence factor between surface stations and that of atmospheric data in and how it concerns the hypothesis of such feedback's?
Now certainly you can suggest something and speculate on occurrence and reaction, but this is not validated and verified, so we are still left with speculation as to causal and reactionary conditions.
OK, so you ignored my humorous attempt at getting you unstuck on stupid. Now, lets get serious.
This information you present as science is PURE CRAP, total nonsense put forth by individuals who haven't an ounce of friggin integrity in their bodies. It would take days and dozens of pages to dissect each ridiculous claim, based on the shear volume of nonsense represented as science fact. It's not worth my time to bother ... why? Because morons who believe this crap in the first place are incapable of formulating a rational thought of their own, and, because it isn't even necessary. The CO2-Climate scam falls flat on it's fraudulent face right at the starting line ... it is incapable of even taking a few steps.
Now, I've already defined for you the reason why this entire Man Made CO2 / climate change scheme is impossible, due to the relationship between global warming and the subsequent rise in CO2 levels that take place after warming periods. Basic common sense of the variety that allows children to be potty trained understands the basics of cause and effect ... realizing that for something to "cause" something else to happen ... the "cause" has to happen FIRST ... not afterward. What part of this simple formula has you so confused?
So stop already with this imbecilic demonstration of depths to which human stupidity can reach ... it's ugly .. it's a blight on every human that has ever lived ... and it justifies the very agenda behind the man made co2 fraud ... that agenda proposes to reduce the human population because those behind it believe that the majority of humans are too stupid be be allowed to continue breathing and consuming resources. And you represent their best evidence. Stop it. Get a clue, and ditch the diaper.
blah blah blah....this is what passes for scientific argument with right wingers post after post of unsourced right wing talking points they have receive in their brainwashing.
When they do manage to source to some crackpot....it's a pet global warming denier that is 1) not an expert in the subject or 2) an outcast that has been peer reviewed by fellow scientist and found to be a fraud.
Last edited by padcrasher; 06-15-2011 at 10:12 AM..
One word - feedbacks. You fail to acknowledge that when surface temperatures increase, including over the global oceans, CO2 is degassed more efficiently, increasing CO2 levels and thus contributing to the warming. The precipice for the warming in the past climate was indeed orbital changes, but it doesn't have to be. The bottom line is - if a forcing causes warming on the planet, CO2 can be more efficiently released and increase the level of warming. That forcing can be solar variability, orbital changes, or increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Orbital changes are not responsible for the recent warming.
Good answer. Not that science matters to these denialists, but thanks for providing some for the sake of argument.
You claimed with your arrogant and condemning response that this could all be easily calculated. I called you on your bluff. You are saying it is all there... , but what you fail to understand Mr. Wizard, is that having the answers is not the same thing as knowing how the answers were came to, which is EXACTLY what your drivel was going off on.
I asked you, if it is so easy, you surely could show us by grabbing that calculator and documenting to us how easy it is to come to the "evidence" of your claim. That is, show your work as you say is so easy to do.
You did not, nor do your links do such and this is the entire problem with your side of the debate.
Instead, you come back like a cornered dog spouting off personal attacks that are typical of someone of your position who argue such. You were caught making a poor claim and had no means to back it up, so obviously the next course of action in your book is to personally insult, paste some irrelevant link that does not answer to the original question and through such wave off the entire issue.
Now AGAIN, I ask you as per this original comment:
More specifically the quote there. It states as such and you claim that it is simply put with such tools to put the tally into perspective.
So I am asking you to provide the work you did to make such a case rather than parroting off linking without involvement such issues. It is so easy as you say, so simple to put it into perspective then you should easily be able to show your work. So show your work please.
Or, come back calling people stupid and going off on a pointless rant insulting in hopes that everyone will ignore your inability to support your claim.
Allow me to recap the meaning of your rambling.
Normander, to my surprise, is not stupid enough to believe the volcanic activity causes more CO2 emissions than human activity but doesn't have the character to admit this fact.
Rule #1 of right wing global warming deniers...never point out the pure stupidity your side's arguments...despite how absurd they are.
Last edited by padcrasher; 06-15-2011 at 10:18 AM..
One word - feedbacks. You fail to acknowledge that when surface temperatures increase, including over the global oceans, CO2 is degassed more efficiently, increasing CO2 levels and thus contributing to the warming. The precipice for the warming in the past climate was indeed orbital changes, but it doesn't have to be. The bottom line is - if a forcing causes warming on the planet, CO2 can be more efficiently released and increase the level of warming. That forcing can be solar variability, orbital changes, or increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Orbital changes are not responsible for the recent warming.
You couldn't possibly understand what you just said, because it's absolutely void of reason.
The subsequent rises in CO2 levels depicted in the ice core records show up several hundred years after a warming period .... this feedback you speak of is simply nonsense.
Furthermore, what you are actually saying is "forget what has driven climate throughout the past history of the planet, there is a new climate diver today". Totally absurd, viod of any scientific reason or evidence.
The bureaucrats pushing the CO2 fraud have gone as far as to say the Sun is not a primary driver of climate ... and it's amazing that they can get anyone to listen to such nonsense without laughing them back under the rocks from which they emerged. Yet people believe this crap ... apparently, to some people, no fact is too obvious that they cannot dismiss altogether ... even something as obvious as the Sun being the fundamental driver of climate ... always has been and always will be.
The mechanisms of climate are extremely complex ... and climate itself is a cyclic operation measured in several hundreds to several thousands of years ... not decades, as has been promoted by the schemers.
I would remind you that it was only as far back as the 1970's that these "Climate Scientists" were warning of a new "Ice Age" that would occur if drastic measures were not taken back then ... asinine claims such as Manhattan being covered under hundreds of feet of ice ... warning of prospect of facing an eminent "extinction level event" occurring by the year 2000. It was HOGWASH then ... and HOGWASH now.
These miscreants are pushing an agenda which has ONE GOAL ... to regulate all human activity under the guise of CO2 reduction to prevent "climate change". They realize that they have no chance of forcing Billions of people to go along with their dastardly schemes, so they are relying on MASS STUPIDITY to allow them to convince those masses to go along, willingly.
You have been brainwashed with a never ending bombardment of propaganda ... and that is how such brainwashing works in those susceptible to such manipulation ... no matter how ridiculous ... virtually anything repeated often enough, long enough, becomes accepted as the truth by many people. Others are simply immune to such things ... realizing that nonsense is nonsense no matter how many times it is repeated. It's part of human nature, and the differences in intellect and how our minds process information. Some people are more right brained ... some more left brained ... some a balance of the two. We have the creative types, the inventor types, the laborer types ... we are not all the same ... we think differently, and process and filter information differently.
This is how religion works to convince masses of people to do all sorts of things, and believe all sorts of things that have no real evidence or proof. It's how cults operate ... convincing people to give up their life's savings and donate it to the cult leader who lives in a mansion while his followers live in tents. This is how governments operate too. Propaganda.
But at the end of the day ... we all have the capacity to clear our minds, and think rationally, and measure the truthfulness and motives of the people we trust. Politicians lie ... is this some big secret to you? It shouldn't be .. since that is primarily all they actually do. Science is just as corrupt as those boys on Wall Street ... it's all about the money ... who funds them, and the results expected to continue that funding. They don't care about the truth, they care about the money ... money is the truth.
Wake up. When the Sun comes up, it get's warmer ... when the sun goes down it gets cooler. When the Sun is blocked by clouds you can feel the loss of intensity on your skin. As the earth travels along it's elliptical orbit around the sun, the seasons change, summer becomes fall, fall becomes winter, winter becomes spring, and the cycle repeats.
Without the Sun, the earth would be a frozen, uninhabitable rock hurtling through space. So when you hear someone tell you that the Sun doesn't determine climate, that's when you know you are being lied to.
There are too many factors involved, some of which scientists have probably not even thought of, yet. Thus anyone claiming this or that is not really convincing. We would have to know all factors along with their exact weights and functions.
Some say even the changing amount of the white reflective surfaces at the poles will have an impact, but nobody really knows to which extent. The rapidly changing landscapes in emerging countries might also have direct consequences, for instance in Brazil.
The sun is also a key player. When I imagine what a giant distance there is between the sun and the earth, it is surprising how much a seemingly tiny factor such as a slightly different latitude has on our climate. One might think that from a universal point of view Portugal is the same as Ireland, still there is a considerable temperature difference.
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.
