January to June 2012 warmest first half of any year on record

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Global warming cant be real

It is why energy companys are spending millions fighting the results

Teh Kochs have even developed a elementary school program
That way they can get kids while they are young to grow up and be corporate Koch suckers
 

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=climate&o=0&l=dir

noun

1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.

3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.





I guess your source needs to get the dictionary changed.

To me, number one says weather average over years...
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I think the scientists are jumping the gun. In the 70's an ice age was coming. Now it's global warming.

Truth is, science gets this shit wrong all the time.

Evidence is nice and all, but there isn't enough.

What I see is meteorologists that have a hard time predicting the weather tomorrow.

And before you say weather is not climate, it in fact is. Weather determines climate.
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=climate&o=0&l=dir

noun

1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.

3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.





I guess your source needs to get the dictionary changed.

To me, number one says weather average over years...
I think they were clear with the definition of climate Your petty semantics does nothing to strengthen your point
 

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
So my point was that climate is weather and because the definition says exactly what I said I'm playing semantics?

I thought words had definitions for a reason.

As to whether or not they are jumping the gun...

Well if they can't predict the average weather two weeks from now, how do they know what it will be in say, 50 years?

Your source says that in fact they can't predict that...
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
So my point was that climate is weather and because the definition says exactly what I said I'm playing semantics?

I thought words had definitions for a reason.

As to whether or not they are jumping the gun...

Well if they can't predict the average weather two weeks from now, how do they know what it will be in say, 50 years?

Your source says that in fact they can't predict that...
Yeah people have already explained the difference between the the 2 to you if you can't get your head round the idea there's not much point carrying this on

Its like explaining the difference between a tennis ball and foot ball and you saying "but the dictionary says they're round so they're the same"
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Yeah people have already explained the difference between the the 2 to you if you can't get your head round the idea there's not much point carrying this on

Its like explaining the difference between a tennis ball and foot ball and you saying "but the dictionary says they're round so they're the same"
The dictionary says a football is round? In my reality footballs are oblong or at best egg-shaped.

Or is that a European dictionary?

Face it, Anti made a factual statement and then proved it. The only one playing semantics is you.

And it's awesome how you throw out information from a hack site whose sole function is to perpetuate the MMGW agenda.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
The dictionary says a football is round? In my reality footballs are oblong or at best egg-shaped.

Or is that a European dictionary?

Face it, Anti made a factual statement and then proved it. The only one playing semantics is you.
He's shown nothing more than that he cannot get past the simplistic definition the dictionary offers
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
I added to my post. Don't forget to tell us how skeptical science is a non-partisan and totally neutral entity in regards to MMGW.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I added to my post. Don't forget to tell us how skeptical science is a non-partisan and totally neutral entity in regards to MMGW.
I've said no such thing. I will say that they back everything up that they say

All your doing is giving disproven talking points smothered in insults. It's clear you have already made up your mind so there's little point discussing it further than quoting the prewritten counter arguements
 

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry that I will continue to believe that climate is the weather averaged out over time and that 117 years of factual data out of billions of years of no factual , for sure absolute definite weather conditions is not enough evidence for me to convict.
By the way, I didn't define the word and I didn't make it up.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry that I will continue to believe that climate is the weather averaged out over time and that 117 years of factual data out of billions of years of no factual , for sure absolute definite weather conditions is not enough evidence for me to convict.
By the way, I didn't define the word and I didn't make it up.
Yeah no one can make you understand anything but I wouldn't be expecting any credibility from now on if I was you
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Yeah no one can make you understand anything but I wouldn't be expecting any credibility from now on if I was you
Credibility is definitely not the area you want to take your stand on. The doomsday predictions and climate model data is being exposed as bunk every year. There seems to be a new scandal about fudged results, exaggerated consequences or flat out intentional lies every year. And who is always at the center of these scandals? Why, it's the renowned climatoligists whose findings are fueling the entire movement. You know, the ones who have nothing to gain by lying, unless you count billions of dollars of grant money and research funds, except for that, of course.

Man contributes less than one tenth of one percent of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere annually. If as has been stated, the natural cycle can easily handle the emissions of volcanic activity, which is vastly greater, it seems odd it can't handle the PALTRY amount we are responsible for.

REMEMBER THE SPOTTED OWL
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Credibility is definitely not the area you want to take your stand on. The doomsday predictions and climate model data is being exposed as bunk every year. There seems to be a new scandal about fudged results, exaggerated consequences or flat out intentional lies every year. And who is always at the center of these scandals? Why, it's the renowned climatoligists whose findings are fueling the entire movement. You know, the ones who have nothing to gain by lying, unless you count billions of dollars of grant money and research funds, except for that, of course.

Man contributes less than one tenth of one percent of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere annually. If as has been stated, the natural cycle can easily handle the emissions of volcanic activity, which is vastly greater, it seems odd it can't handle the PALTRY amount we are responsible for.

REMEMBER THE SPOTTED OWL
What no non partisan source for your info?

[h=1]How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?[/h]Link to this page
[h=2]The skeptic argument...[/h]
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

[h=2]What the science says...[/h]
Select a level...
Basic
Intermediate
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
Last updated on 29 August 2010 by gpwayne.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
What no non partisan source for your info?

[h=1]How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?[/h]Link to this page
[h=2]The skeptic argument...[/h]
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

[h=2]What the science says...[/h]
Select a level...
Basic
Intermediate
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
Last updated on 29 August 2010 by gpwayne.
I actually saw that page yesterday before I posted and it made me laugh both times. I do realize I misstated our contribution. We currently contribute 4% of CO2, but only 1/10th of one percent of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere annually. So, thank you for helping me catch my error.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I actually saw that page yesterday before I posted and it made me laugh both times. I do realize I misstated our contribution. We currently contribute 4% of CO2, but only 1/10th of one percent of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere annually. So, thank you for helping me catch my error.
1/10 of a percent?

Are you talking about the ppm's?

CO2 is just a trace gas

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


CO2 is just a trace gas
"We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!
Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster ..." (Gregg Thompson)
What the science says...

Small amounts of very active substances can cause large effects.
CO[SUB]2[/SUB] makes up 390 ppm (0.039%)* of the atmosphere, how can such a small amount be important? Saying that CO[SUB]2[/SUB]is "only a trace gas" is like saying that arsenic is "only" a trace water contaminant. Small amounts of very active substances can cause large effects. Some Examples of Important Small Amounts:


  • He wasn't driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states, and limits are lower in most other countries).


  • Ireland isn't important; it's only 660 ppm (0.066%) of the world population.

  • That ibuprofen pill can't do you any good; it's only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person).

  • The Earth is insignificant, it's only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.

  • Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).

  • Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm is the exposure limit established by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends an ozone limit of 0.051 ppm.

  • A few parts per million of ink can turn a bucket of water blue. The color is caused by the absorption of the yellow/red colors from sunlight, leaving the blue. Twice as much ink causes a much stronger color, even though the total amount is still only a trace relative to water.
"Traces" of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]

Although percentage is a convenient way to talk about the amount of gas in the atmosphere, it only tells how much is there relative to everything else; percentage doesn’t give an absolute amount.For example, you have trouble breathing on top of Mount Everest even though the atmosphere still contains 21% oxygen just like at sea level. The percentage isn't important, you need a certain number of oxygen molecules with each breath, regardless of how much or little they are diluted by inert gases. At an altitude of 8000 m the whole atmosphere is diluted.The total number of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] molecules above our heads in the atmosphere is more important than their percentage in the atmosphere. If the amount of inert nitrogen gas (N[SUB]2[/SUB]) in the atmosphere were to be cut in half then thepercentage of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] would jump (to about 600 ppm; 0.06%) without a change in the absolute amount of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]and no substantial change in the energy balance of the Earth. Adding a huge number of energy-absorbing CO[SUB]2[/SUB] molecules to the atmosphere doesn’t change its percent number very much, only because it's being added to a vast inert N[SUB]2[/SUB] background.
We know the amount of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere has increased because we have measured it. We know the climate has warmed from current and historical data. The link between increasing greenhouse gases and increasing temperature is clear: just as ink makes water more colored, CO[SUB]2[/SUB] makes the atmosphere more absorbing. The extra CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in our atmosphere is trapping energy that would otherwise escape to space. The measured global warming matches closely with the amount of energy trapped from the greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere.A doubling of the trace molecule CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from 280 ppm to 560 ppm is still a trace, but just like with arsenic, the difference between a small trace and a larger trace is fatal.[HR][/HR]* To convert ppm to percentage divide by 10,000.Photo credit: http://www.photographyblogger.net/15-cool-pictures-of-ink-in-water/Last updated on 26 August 2011 by Sarah.N

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
He's shown nothing more than that he cannot get past the simplistic definition the dictionary offers
All you've shown is a religious devotion to the movement. It's ok, we all need something to be religious about.

Many of the points you have put up are blatant logical fallacies or are just outright stupid.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Credibility is definitely not the area you want to take your stand on.
And you would know a lot about that
Since you base your global warming opinions on a University that doesnt exist, that claims to have 30000 scientists onboard
and then comes out and says that the actual number is less than 2100 and only a dozen of those are even involved in climatology

It is really easy to be a Frightwing troll
When all your opinions are given to you
 

Johnny Retro

Well-Known Member
The 2010-2011 winter here was terrible. We had one snowfall that was up to my chest (6'1) Not to mention it was fucking cold. Where was global warming then?
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
And you would know a lot about that
Since you base your global warming opinions on a University that doesnt exist, that claims to have 30000 scientists onboard
and then comes out and says that the actual number is less than 2100 and only a dozen of those are even involved in climatology

It is really easy to be a Frightwing troll
When all your opinions are given to you

Wow, it almost sounds similar to what the IIPC did, except that they didn't even bother to tell their climatoligists they were going on theirs. They just stuck them on there.

"frightwing" ? Wow, are you and UB gonna share a milkshake now? I picture the spaghetti scene from Lady and the Tramp.
 
Top