Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#61 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:22 AM

I find reading global warming deniers' arguments very useful seeing as one day we're going to have to explain them to our children.

#62 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:58 AM

Just like global cooling, eugenics, institutionalized lobotomies, geocentrism, the flat earth, the four elements, the four humors, how vitamin C prevents illness, "part of this complete breakfast", how cutting down the rain forest in Brazil will result in a loss of worldwide oxygen, alchemy, the California island.... yeah.... the best minds had it all figured out then. Only they didn't... but this time is different, right?

It's a mere decade removed from many of the so-called experts' opinions on the pending calamity upon all mankind and they have been nothing close to true. If we know so much, how could we be so wrong time and again?

Enter Delhommey: "I make snide remarks to make internet peoples think I know what I'm talking about. I'll say something I think is clever, but is actually shallow and sophomoric and the gallery will respond with glee. That makes me right."

#63 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:06 AM

Dude. You were arguing that volcanos caused the hole in the ozone and that CFC's are too heavy to get that high. I can't exactly take you seriously here.

#64 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:15 AM

Dude. You were arguing that volcanos caused the hole in the ozone and that CFC's are too heavy to get that high. I can't exactly take you seriously here.


And still nothing to contribute. Typical. Rather than actually engage in debate of factual content, you'd rather score points in a popularity contest based in nothing relating to fact. You should be a politician. You'd be awesome. Watch some more Daily Show/MSNBC/MTV... I'm sure they'll give you some more great talking points for the masses still preening to be seen as hip rather than actually informed.

#65 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:37 AM

It's a mere decade removed from many of the so-called experts' opinions on the pending calamity upon all mankind and they have been nothing close to true. If we know so much, how could we be so wrong time and again?


Which experts have been proved wrong? I havent seen a true climate expert make any sort of dire prediction for the near future, most of their stuff is concerned with 50-100 years down the road.

Also I'm wondering why the sun spot cycle is being included in this conversation when it is a rather weak 11 year phenomena. Unless you're talking about some other solar cycle

#66 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:48 AM

And still nothing to contribute. Typical. Rather than actually engage in debate of factual content, you'd rather score points in a popularity contest based in nothing relating to fact. You should be a politician. You'd be awesome. Watch some more Daily Show/MSNBC/MTV... I'm sure they'll give you some more great talking points for the masses still preening to be seen as hip rather than actually informed.


Honestly, when you contribute something meaningful, I will too. However continue to get your ass eaten alive by scientific fact and think that you're somehow holding your own in this thread.

#67 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:11 AM

Which experts have been proved wrong? I havent seen a true climate expert make any sort of dire prediction for the near future, most of their stuff is concerned with 50-100 years down the road.

Also I'm wondering why the sun spot cycle is being included in this conversation when it is a rather weak 11 year phenomena. Unless you're talking about some other solar cycle


As a whole, the IPCC has been severely wrong in their predictions. They are the ones cited for evidence when determining political policy and by Al Gore for his continued campaign as the spearhead for said propaganda. Since 1990, actual global temp increases have been ~.014 degree Celsius. This is a far cry from the .30 to .50 predictions touted by their 1st through 4th predictions:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...reports.shtml#1

As for solar cycles, they simply cannot be discounted with the totality of evidence and how it correlates with what we know of global mean temperatures. It doesn't mean that other factors cannot influence global climate, but of all research that has been proven over time, solar radiation (sometimes coupled with geomagnetic influence) is known to account for the majority of variance.

#68 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:12 AM

Honestly, when you contribute something meaningful, I will too. However continue to get your ass eaten alive by scientific fact and think that you're somehow holding your own in this thread.


I forgot... you only read in pictures. You clearly have no substance to your beliefs. Otherwise, you'd lay them out for the crucible of truth without hesitation.

#69 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:29 AM

I'll bet being an armchair scientist is fun.

#70 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:34 AM

I'll bet being an armchair scientist is fun.


Another big contributor! Care to make an actual comment, or would you rather just sit at the back of the class and giggle with the rest of the dimmer light bulbs?



That better for ya?

#71 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,775 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:43 AM

If you want to talk about the politics of it then sure, there's a discussion to be had. If you just want to deny the science then go waste someone else's time.

#72 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,585 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:19 AM

VOLCANOS

#73 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:54 AM

As a whole, the IPCC has been severely wrong in their predictions. They are the ones cited for evidence when determining political policy and by Al Gore for his continued campaign as the spearhead for said propaganda. Since 1990, actual global temp increases have been ~.014 degree Celsius. This is a far cry from the .30 to .50 predictions touted by their 1st through 4th predictions:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...reports.shtml#1

As for solar cycles, they simply cannot be discounted with the totality of evidence and how it correlates with what we know of global mean temperatures. It doesn't mean that other factors cannot influence global climate, but of all research that has been proven over time, solar radiation (sometimes coupled with geomagnetic influence) is known to account for the majority of variance.


Where are you getting this part? I havent heard of much variation in solar radiation from year to year, to the best of my knowledge the sun spot cycle accounts for maybe 1-3 W/m2 while the total average solar radiation hitting earth is ~1300 W/m2

Also- I thought we had more warming since 1990. I know that sea level rise has been accelerating since 1980 (as compared with the earlier 20th century). And Al Gore is not a climate scientist

#74 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:11 PM

Where are you getting this part? I havent heard of much variation in solar radiation from year to year, to the best of my knowledge the sun spot cycle accounts for maybe 1-3 W/m2 while the total average solar radiation hitting earth is ~1300 W/m2

Also- I thought we had more warming since 1990. I know that sea level rise has been accelerating since 1980 (as compared with the earlier 20th century). And Al Gore is not a climate scientist


Don't take my word for it... ask NASA

http://earthobservat...Features/SORCE/

They thought enough of the idea to form an entire division for it

#75 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:12 PM

If you want to talk about the politics of it then sure, there's a discussion to be had. If you just want to deny the science then go waste someone else's time.


I've shown that I'm willing to talk both. You've shown that you're willing to talk neither


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com