Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUTailgatingRules on December 30, 2013, 01:30:35 PM
-
Global warming scientists stuck in the antarctic ice :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/12/28/msm-glosses-over-irony-global-warming-scientists-trapped-antarctic-ice#ixzz2ovITxKYv (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/12/28/msm-glosses-over-irony-global-warming-scientists-trapped-antarctic-ice#ixzz2ovITxKYv)
-
It's cold during the winter. So much for Global Warming, amiright?
http://qz.com/163636/how-global-warming-can-make-cold-snaps-even-worse/ (http://qz.com/163636/how-global-warming-can-make-cold-snaps-even-worse/)
How global warming can make cold snaps even worse
By Eric Holthaus @EricHolthaus January 6, 2014
Baby, it's cold outside. AP/Jeff Roberson
The cold air pushing toward America’s heartland is of a duration and magnitude rarely seen since record-keeping began in the 1870s. In Minneapolis, forecasters warned that all-time wind chill records could be broken, with a stunning -65ºF predicted for Monday morning.
As the record-setting cold spreads across the US, brace yourself for this conversation:
Your friend: “Sure is cold outside, amirite? Minneapolis is as cold as Mars right now. Crazy, huh? So much for that whole global warming thing, eh?â€
You: “Well…â€
In fact, despite the trolling of Donald Trump and other climate change deniers, global warming is probably contributing to the record cold, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. The key factor is a feedback mechanism of climate change known as Arctic amplification. Here’s how to explain the nuts and bolts of it to your under-informed family and friends:
Snow and ice are disappearing from the Arctic region at unprecedented rates, leaving behind relatively warmer open water, which is much less reflective to incoming sunlight than ice. That, among other factors, is causing the northern polar region of our planet to warm at a faster rate than the rest of the northern hemisphere. (And, just to state the obvious, global warming describes a global trend toward warmer temperatures, which doesn’t preclude occasional cold-weather extremes.)
Since the difference in temperature between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes helps drive the jet stream (which, in turn, drives most US weather patterns), if that temperature difference decreases, it stands to reason that the jet stream’s winds will slow down. Why does this matter?
Well, atmospheric theory predicts that a slower jet stream will produce wavier and more sluggish weather patterns, in turn leading to more frequent extreme weather. And, turns out, that’s exactly what we’ve been seeing in recent years. Superstorm Sandy’s uncharacteristic left hook into the New Jersey coast in 2012 was one such example of an extremely anomalous jet stream blocking pattern.
When these exceptionally wavy jet stream patterns occur mid-winter, it’s a recipe for cold air to get sucked southwards. This week, that’s happening in spectacular fashion.
Climate scientist Jennifer A. Francis of Rutgers University explains this process in a short video (h/t Climate Progress):
http://youtu.be/_nzwJg4Ebzo (http://youtu.be/_nzwJg4Ebzo)
This effect has already been measured with mid-level atmospheric winds in the northern hemisphere decreasing by around 10% since 1990. Not-so-coincidentally, that’s about the same time when Arctic sea ice extent really started to crash.
(http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/francis_gallery_sept_ice_550.jpg?w=550&h=400)
The solid line is average west-to-east wind speeds midway up the atmosphere; the dashed line is Arctic sea ice extent.
Skeptical Science (the ‘Snopes’ of climate science) has a comprehensive explainer (https://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html) on Arctic amplification and the jet stream, for those that want to dig deeper on the subject. And, as a PSA, is a great-go to resource when situations like this arise.
-
You do realize this is insanity don't you Chiz?
It's so hot it's cold. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Droughts are also caused by excessive rain.
I keep my ice in the stove so it's super frozen.
The more classes I skip the better my grades will be.
The more I spend the more I have in my bank account.
The more caffeine I drink at night the better I sleep.
The more vodka I drink the more sober I become.
-
One thing that I do know that can make a cold snap even worse is ice on deeez nuts.
-
You do realize this is insanity don't you Chiz?
It's so hot it's cold. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Droughts are also caused by excessive rain.
I keep my ice in the stove so it's super frozen.
The more classes I skip the better my grades will be.
The more I spend the more I have in my bank account.
The more caffeine I drink at night the better I sleep.
The more vodka I drink the more sober I become.
It's a global temperature warming, which causes issues in our typical climate.
Think of it like this:
Droughts lead to the failure to produce crops. Therefore, it is good to have rain. However, if it rains too much, the same result will occur as a drought - the failure to produce crops.
The global temperature is expected to be X. When it is X, the climates of the various regions on the planet to function as A-F. If X rises, it will affect A-F in different ways. The South is in region D and the result of an increase in X is for temperatures to plunge due to the melting of the northern ice cap thus changing the temperature of the jet streams in both the water and in the air. This will also result in harsher and unexpected storms.
It's really not a hard concept.
-
You do realize this is insanity don't you Chiz?
It's so hot it's cold. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Droughts are also caused by excessive rain.
I keep my ice in the stove so it's super frozen.
The more classes I skip the better my grades will be.
The more I spend the more I have in my bank account.
The more caffeine I drink at night the better I sleep.
The more vodka I drink the more sober I become.
Did you bother to read at all about the polar ice caps melting causing a starker contrast in temperatures between the North Pole and the rest of the northern hemisphere, which causes jet streams to vary wildly, which causes the extreme weather we've been seeing?
Did you watch the video? Did you read through the link in the hyperlinked text that goes into greater detail (https://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html )?
I'm guessing you didn't.
And I'm guessing even if you did, you'd remain obtuse and refuse to think beyond:
It's dark, therefore a monster eats the sun at night.
When on one side of the earth vs. another, I never feel like I'm upside-down, therefore the earth is flat.
When I look at water, I don't see Hydrogen or Oxygen atoms, therefore molecular structure is bullshit.
-
If this is such a big deal, why does Santa Claus and the elves not seem to have any trouble living on one of the poles? They've been there forever, so I think that we can adjust.
-
It's really not a hard concept.
It is when you suture up your brain so that absolutely zero learnin' gets in there because science is da debil.
-
It's so cold out there today, the high will be "Holy shit, I can't feel my fucking face" degrees.
It's so cold, I actually saw a teenager walking with his pants pulled up.
It's so cold, I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.
-
It's so cold that I saw a squirrel holding his nuts with mittens.
-
Did you bother to read at all about the polar ice caps melting causing a starker contrast in temperatures between the North Pole and the rest of the northern hemisphere, which causes jet streams to vary wildly, which causes the extreme weather we've been seeing?
Did you watch the video? Did you read through the link in the hyperlinked text that goes into greater detail (https://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html )?
I'm guessing you didn't.
And I'm guessing even if you did, you'd remain obtuse and refuse to think beyond:
It's dark, therefore a monster eats the sun at night.
When on one side of the earth vs. another, I never feel like I'm upside-down, therefore the earth is flat.
When I look at water, I don't see Hydrogen or Oxygen atoms, therefore molecular structure is bullshoot.
Except the polar icecaps AREN'T melting.
It's really hot in here. Bring me a blanket and build a fire.
-
It's a global temperature warming, which causes issues in our typical climate.
Think of it like this:
Droughts lead to the failure to produce crops. Therefore, it is good to have rain. However, if it rains too much, the same result will occur as a drought - the failure to produce crops.
The global temperature is expected to be X. When it is X, the climates of the various regions on the planet to function as A-F. If X rises, it will affect A-F in different ways. The South is in region D and the result of an increase in X is for temperatures to plunge due to the melting of the northern ice cap thus changing the temperature of the jet streams in both the water and in the air. This will also result in harsher and unexpected storms.
It's really not a hard concept.
I'm sorry. This is insanity. Pure wackiness. It's too hot! Global warming. It's too cold! Global warming!!!
Temperatures vary AS THEY FUCKING HAVE FOR THE LAST MILLION FUCKING YEARS and iglobal warming, global warming.
It's narcissism. It's voodoo. It's bullshit.
-
I'm sorry. This is insanity. Pure wackiness. It's too hot! Global warming. It's too cold! Global warming!!!
Temperatures vary AS THEY FUCKING HAVE FOR THE LAST MILLION FUCKING YEARS and iglobal warming, global warming.
It's narcissism. It's voodoo. It's bullshit.
Oh, it's narcissism to agree with 98% of climate scientists, and not think that your non-science-related-degree-having ass is infinitely wiser in that particular field than the experts.
Ok.
What's the name of this thread again?
-
Oh, it's narcissism to agree with 98% of climate scientists, and not think that your non-science-related-degree-having ass is infinitely wiser in that particular field than the experts.
Ok.
What's the name of this thread again?
98% is a fraudulent number. Not even close to true.
My degree is in thinking alarmists are nutso. I've got a doctorate.
You're not old enough to remember the world-wide "we's all a-gonna FREEZE to death" panic of the 70s. The ice sheath was gonna come down as far as Kentucky. There would be polar bears in Chicago. Penguins in Pittsburgh. Arctic wolves roaming the streets of Huntsville. White Christmas in Orlando.
Why? Pollution. Was gonna freeze us out. So we had to put federal regulations in to change auto emissions and change how plants burned waste and so on.
Why? Government control. And $$$$$.
Now we're gonna burn.
Horse shoot. Good work chicken little.
There's your irony. The same kind of freakos who scared the frostbite out of us are now running around with their brains on fire screaming about how we're all gonna burn. And you're buying it.
I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.
-
My degree is in thinking alarmists are nutso. I've got a doctorate.
Is this from an accredited university?
-
Is this from an accredited university?
Sacs hammer coming
-
98% is a fraudulent number. Not even close to true.
My degree is in thinking alarmists are nutso. I've got a doctorate.
You're not old enough to remember the world-wide "we's all a-gonna FREEZE to death" panic of the 70s. The ice sheath was gonna come down as far as Kentucky. There would be polar bears in Chicago. Penguins in Pittsburgh. Arctic wolves roaming the streets of Huntsville. White Christmas in Orlando.
Why? Pollution. Was gonna freeze us out. So we had to put federal regulations in to change auto emissions and change how plants burned waste and so on.
Why? Government control. And $$$$$.
Now we're gonna burn.
Horse shoot. Good work chicken little.
There's your irony. The same kind of freakos who scared the frostbite out of us are now running around with their brains on fire screaming about how we're all gonna burn. And you're buying it.
I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.
Oh come on. You know back then they didn't have the interwebs to prove all that true. You need to open your mind and see the light. Send a check to offset your carbon footprint please!
-
It's a global temperature warming, which causes issues in our typical climate.
Think of it like this:
Droughts lead to the failure to produce crops. Therefore, it is good to have rain. However, if it rains too much, the same result will occur as a drought - the failure to produce crops.
The global temperature is expected to be X. When it is X, the climates of the various regions on the planet to function as A-F. If X rises, it will affect A-F in different ways. The South is in region D and the result of an increase in X is for temperatures to plunge due to the melting of the northern ice cap thus changing the temperature of the jet streams in both the water and in the air. This will also result in harsher and unexpected storms.
It's really not a hard concept.
It's cyclical. Not sure why you guys don't get this.
Been happening since we've been noticing weather. Man made global warming is a fad/hoax. The same as those giggling weight loss belt machines from the 80s and gluten free diets.
-
Most scientists at one time also thought earth was flat and that blood letting worked. Science findings are often funded or based upon current politics. Always have been. Most studies now are funded to get a certain and wanted outcome.
In the 80s eggs and coffee would kill you. An alarm fueled mainly in part by the soft drink and processed food industry. The result - more people have a coke and a pop tart instead.
-
98% is a fraudulent number. Not even close to true.
Maybe if I put it in graph form it would sink in.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bd81XDeIQAA9vQI.png)
-
Feel free to buy all the carbon offsets that you'd like to.
-
Maybe if I put it in graph form it would sink in.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bd81XDeIQAA9vQI.png)
In don't care if you draw it in good leaf and project it onto a dinosaur's ass. It's still a fraud. Not close to true.
-
In don't care if you draw it in good leaf and project it onto a dinosaur's ass. It's still a fraud. Not close to true.
That Popular Science is so full of shit, man.
I mean, I don't even try to offer up any data to the contrary, but that data there is counter to my set-in-fucking-stone, mule-stubborn worldview, so it's gotta be bullshit.
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change (http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change)
Here's what the graph looked like pre-2012. It was much less conclusive in those salad days.
(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/image_full/public/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png?itok=c5y7WDsS)
-
This Forbes article from two years ago tells me everything I need to know for now.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/)
-
This Forbes article from two years ago tells me everything I need to know for now.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/)
Since that doesn't have a graph with made up numbers how can you possibly believe it?
-
This Forbes article from two years ago tells me everything I need to know for now.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/)
He went to a conference sponsored by an organization hell-bent on ending all government regulations concerning the environment. Of course he came away with the conclusion that global warming is false.
-
He went to a conference sponsored by an organization hell-bent on ending all government regulations concerning the environment. Of course he came away with the conclusion that global warming is false.
Red Herring.
Doesn't make the data any less significant.
-
Red Herring.
Doesn't make the data any less significant.
What data?
It's not like Forbes is a peer-reviewed journal. He merely gave an overview of some speakers at the conference who stated that the planet was in a cooling trend. There was no comparison to the pro-climate change scientists. There was no analysis of the two sides methods of experimentation and their methods to reach their conclusions, nor was there anything mentioned about the validity or invalidity of either sides claims.
-
At a certain point, I just feel bad for people that absolutely dog-headedly refuse to believe in facts.
You might as well believe that gravity is bullshit because science don't know shit and scientists used to think the world was flat (by the way, they didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth)). If you want to keep thinking that way, for whatever extremely biased reason, then go right ahead. You look stupid to any educated person. Call that snobby. Call that elitist. Call that intolerant of your "views". It's fact. It's scientific fact. It's not up for debate unless photosynthesis and nuclear fission are up for debate as well.
If the numbers in the charts, of peer-reviewed scientific climate articles vs. the number that rejected climate change, are "made up", then show me one source that lists different numbers. You can't. Because the facts don't match your predetermined bias, and therefore no new data can enter your skull.
Keep believing in unicorns if it makes you feel better politically.
We've been over this before, but I'm frankly astonished by it. Is it a refusal to admit prior held beliefs that are now proven wrong? Is it a religious thing? If science has legitimacy then things like virgin births and talking serpents and other impossibilities of the physical world have to be examined? Is science a threat to that? I really don't get it.
-
Here fishy fishy fishy fishy.
-
At a certain point, I just feel bad for people that absolutely dog-headedly refuse to believe in facts.
You might as well believe that gravity is bullshoot because science don't know shoot and scientists used to think the world was flat (by the way, they didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth)). If you want to keep thinking that way, for whatever extremely biased reason, then go right ahead. You look stupid to any educated person. Call that snobby. Call that elitist. Call that intolerant of your "views". It's fact. It's scientific fact. It's not up for debate unless photosynthesis and nuclear fission are up for debate as well.
If the numbers in the charts, of peer-reviewed scientific climate articles vs. the number that rejected climate change, are "made up", then show me one source that lists different numbers. You can't. Because the facts don't match your predetermined bias, and therefore no new data can enter your skull.
Keep believing in unicorns if it makes you feel better politically.
We've been over this before, but I'm frankly astonished by it. Is it a refusal to admit prior held beliefs that are now proven wrong? Is it a religious thing? If science has legitimacy then things like virgin births and talking serpents and other impossibilities of the physical world have to be examined? Is science a threat to that? I really don't get it.
And all you alarmists with your "facts" -- which by the way have changed multiple times over the last 40 years -- look like idiotic chicken littles running around shouting that the sky is falling.
If you can't see that this entire farce is created by people who have to justify their existence AND FUNDING in concert with government that wants even more control over every aspect of your life then I pity future generations.
Be a bleating sheep if you want. Baaaa along with the warming warnings today just as you bleated along with the global freezing warnings of the 70s. Keep on sheeping on.
-
If you can't see that this entire farce is created by people who have to justify their existence AND FUNDING in concert with government that wants even more control over every aspect of your life then I pity future generations.
Yes. It makes more sense that the liberal politicians have something financially to gain by agreeing with 99.99% of scientists (Fact: 9135 out of 9136; refer to the graph), but the corporations fighting against any environmental regulation whatsoever specifically because of its effect on their bottom line, and the political party aligned with those interests, have nothing to gain whatsoever, 'scept'n to edumacate.
Be a bleating sheep if you want. Baaaa along with the warming warnings today just as you bleated along with the global freezing warnings of the 70s. Keep on sheeping on.
You know better. I know you do. You know that warming and cooling both are a part of climate change. You've seen the meteorological data that explains this as clearly and succinctly as possible. You know that nothing about extreme colds and extreme warms is in any way, shape, or form contradictory to climate change theories. But you'll keep barking it hoping others are dumb enough to accept the obvious oversimplification. What do you stand to gain from spreading ignorance?
-
Yes. It makes more sense that the liberal politicians have something financially to gain by agreeing with 99.99% of scientists (Fact: 9135 out of 9136; refer to the graph), but the corporations fighting against any environmental regulation whatsoever specifically because of its effect on their bottom line, and the political party aligned with those interests, have nothing to gain whatsoever, 'scept'n to edumacate.
You know better. I know you do. You know that warming and cooling both are a part of climate change. You've seen the meteorological data that explains this as clearly and succinctly as possible. You know that nothing about extreme colds and extreme warms is in any way, shape, or form contradictory to climate change theories. But you'll keep barking it hoping others are dumb enough to accept the obvious oversimplification. What do you stand to gain from spreading ignorance?
When you're 50 and they're bellowing about the migration of wolverines as possibly destroying the natural food chain and sending the US economy into a death spiral .... And when you've seen "scientific" scare after scare used to justify spending money on research and ceding power to governmental regulation you'll understand.
We're all gonna freeze! African bees are gonna take over the US!! Swine flu OMG! Pollution gonna cause the world to descend into an ice age!!!! Oil is going to run out!!! The Russians are going to bomb us!! The sun is going to burn out!!!!! OMG! OMG!! OMG!!! The climate is CHANGING!!
No shit, Sherlock. It changes across the centuries. It warms and it cools. It will continue on the same path for eons after you are gone. You're being trapped by your own narcissism. The misguided belief that you are so important that what you do impacts the universe.
It doesn't. You're a speck. So are we all. Individually and collectively.
-
We're all gonna freeze! African bees are gonna take over the US!! Swine flu OMG! Pollution gonna cause the world to descend into an ice age!!!! Oil is going to run out!!! The Russians are going to bomb us!! The sun is going to burn out!!!!! OMG! OMG!! OMG!!! The climate is CHANGING!!
I was not aware of any of this. Fuck it, I am not going to work tomorrow.
-
I was not aware of any of this. Fuck it, I am not going to work tomorrow.
Wait...you people work?
-
Wait...you people work?
My hoes do,you racist stereotyper.
-
When you're 50 and they're bellowing about the migration of wolverines as possibly destroying the natural food chain and sending the US economy into a death spiral .... And when you've seen "scientific" scare after scare used to justify spending money on research and ceding power to governmental regulation you'll understand.
We're all gonna freeze! African bees are gonna take over the US!! Swine flu OMG! Pollution gonna cause the world to descend into an ice age!!!! Oil is going to run out!!! The Russians are going to bomb us!! The sun is going to burn out!!!!! OMG! OMG!! OMG!!! The climate is CHANGING!!
No shit, Sherlock. It changes across the centuries. It warms and it cools. It will continue on the same path for eons after you are gone. You're being trapped by your own narcissism. The misguided belief that you are so important that what you do impacts the universe.
It doesn't. You're a speck. So are we all. Individually and collectively.
Very well put. The shit our youth have been fed is pathetic. They seem to have no way of putting any of it in perspective. It's all "OMG. OMG, OMG" 24/7.
Sit back. Relax. Let the play finish. You are only in the early acts.
-
When you're 50 and they're bellowing about the migration of wolverines as possibly destroying the natural food chain and sending the US economy into a death spiral .... And when you've seen "scientific" scare after scare used to justify spending money on research and ceding power to governmental regulation you'll understand.
We're all gonna freeze! African bees are gonna take over the US!! Swine flu OMG! Pollution gonna cause the world to descend into an ice age!!!! Oil is going to run out!!! The Russians are going to bomb us!! The sun is going to burn out!!!!! OMG! OMG!! OMG!!! The climate is CHANGING!!
No shit, Sherlock. It changes across the centuries. It warms and it cools. It will continue on the same path for eons after you are gone. You're being trapped by your own narcissism. The misguided belief that you are so important that what you do impacts the universe.
It doesn't. You're a speck. So are we all. Individually and collectively.
Hogwash
It's not possibly for the earth to do any of this on it's on. Nature is weak and needs man to function. We also created floods, hurricanes and volcanos 1000 years ago.
-
You guys have artificially attached the hysteria to my position.
I can agree with the group that there may be exaggeration for how urgent a crisis climate change is, or how much our lives should be affected trying to do something about it.
Where we diverge is you refusing to acknowledge a scientific fact. I don't.
It's very different to say "The earth orbits the sun as it rotates on its axis" and "OMG!!! Earth's gonna spiral into the sun!!!"
I'm saying the former. The fact. It is ignorant to try to debate a solid scientific fact. The appropriate reaction to that fact is another story entirely, and one perhaps we could agree on, if you would just acknowledge the reality that is anthropomorphic climate change.
-
if you would just acknowledge the reality that is anthropomorphic climate change.
No. It's more fun to hear the arguing.
Dance monkey.
-
You guys have artificially attached the hysteria to my position.
I can agree with the group that there may be exaggeration for how urgent a crisis climate change is, or how much our lives should be affected trying to do something about it.
Where we diverge is you refusing to acknowledge a scientific fact. I don't.
It's very different to say "The earth orbits the sun as it rotates on its axis" and "OMG!!! Earth's gonna spiral into the sun!!!"
I'm saying the former. The fact. It is ignorant to try to debate a solid scientific fact. The appropriate reaction to that fact is another story entirely, and one perhaps we could agree on, if you would just acknowledge the reality that is anthropomorphic climate change.
I refuse to acknowledge what does not exist.
-
It's so cold, the local flasher was arrested for describing himself to women.
-
I refuse to acknowledge what does not exist.
If you had data from 500-5000 years ago and wanted to compare, then I might listen. But to take a small stretch of time and try to claim it as "scientific fact", well, that is absurd. Like Kaos said, that same small fact finding group took a small sample of facts in the 70s and told us we would freeze to death.
So the bottom line here is, the facts do not tell the whole story.
-
If you had data from 500-5000 years ago and wanted to compare, then I might listen. But to take a small stretch of time and try to claim it as "scientific fact", well, that is absurd. Like Kaos said, that same small fact finding group took a small sample of facts in the 70s and told us we would freeze to death.
So the bottom line here is, the facts do not tell the whole story.
The earf is only 29 years old. I's born in 1984, and therefore, I cain't be expected to believe it be any older than that!
-
If you had data from 500-5000 years ago and wanted to compare, then I might listen. But to take a small stretch of time and try to claim it as "scientific fact", well, that is absurd. Like Kaos said, that same small fact finding group took a small sample of facts in the 70s and told us we would freeze to death.
So the bottom line here is, the facts do not tell the whole story.
Yeah, the data is from 650,000 years ago, which of course means it's BULLSHIT because the earth's only a couple thousand according to the flawless Bible.
Citing the money-grubbing lib'rul LYERS at NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence)
(http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/co2Graph11-cropped.jpg)
Lemme guess, you're still not listening.
-
That's where Frozen Caveman Lawyer came from. 650,000 years ago.
-
Yeah, the data is from 650,000 years ago, which of course means it's BULLshoot because the earth's only a couple thousand according to the flawless Bible.
Citing the money-grubbing lib'rul LYERS at NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence)
(http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/co2Graph11-cropped.jpg)
Lemme guess, you're still not listening.
Right. Because Brontosaurus Bob had CO2 measuring equipment attached to his cranium.
More bogus-osity.
-
That's where Frozen Caveman Lawyer came from. 650,000 years ago.
He was the first lawyer to lie. I saw that documentary. There is no way he was that old.
-
Yeah, the data is from 650,000 years ago, which of course means it's BULLshoot because the earth's only a couple thousand according to the flawless Bible.
Citing the money-grubbing lib'rul LYERS at NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence)
(http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/co2Graph11-cropped.jpg)
Lemme guess, you're still not listening.
What did they measure CO2 with 650,000 years ago? I think it was alien technology myself.
-
Right. Because Brontosaurus Bob had CO2 measuring equipment attached to his cranium.
More bogus-osity.
Yeah, you're right. NASA probably just made those numbers up out of thin air bubbles trapped deep in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica. Just as an example.
No way to scientifically measure things that "happened" before the beepity-boop CO2 transmodulizerograph was invented 1972.
-
No way to scientifically measure things that "happened" before the beepity-boop CO2 transmodulizerograph was invented 1972.
I agree with you on this but I don't see how it supports your argument.
-
You guys have artificially attached the hysteria to my position.
I can agree with the group that there may be exaggeration for how urgent a crisis climate change is, or how much our lives should be affected trying to do something about it.
Where we diverge is you refusing to acknowledge a scientific fact. I don't.
It's very different to say "The earth orbits the sun as it rotates on its axis" and "OMG!!! Earth's gonna spiral into the sun!!!"
I'm saying the former. The fact. It is ignorant to try to debate a solid scientific fact. The appropriate reaction to that fact is another story entirely, and one perhaps we could agree on, if you would just acknowledge the reality that is anthropomorphic climate change.
I think the correct word is 'anthropogenic'.
-
I think the correct word is 'anthropogenic'.
Is that the name of the CO2 device Marty McFly strapped to Brontosaurus Bob?
-
Wait...you people work?
Not some of us, but we are trying.
(unemployment and military retirement means a lot of golf right now.)
-
I agree with you on this but I don't see how it supports your argument.
Because numerous fields of science have discovered and now utilize ways to measure far into the past.
I wasn't around when that tree was born, but I can count the rings inside to tell how old it is. Similar to that.
I wasn't around to know if Alabama was once covered by an ocean or not. But there's geological evidence to prove it.
I wasn't around to know if dinosaurs existed. But there's fossils in the ground.
I wasn't around 65 million years ago to know if dinosaurs were around then, but there's carbon dating to determine it.
I wasn't around 650,000 years ago to know what the CO2 levels were in the atmosphere, but there's...wait...nope this one's not allowed.
-
Actually, knowing what happened thousands of years ago proves more against Man Made Climate Change than anything.
We know there were floods, an ice age, and other catastrophic events.
No one is really arguing that. What some are simply saying is that Billy Bob's Dodge Ram, Carnegie's steel factories, Coal burning and Vanderbilt's railroads are NOT the reason for these natural events - cooling, warming, volcanos, weather patterns, whatever. These are cyclical events that have been happening since we could observe it.
The technology to be able to see things that happened before the industrial revolution, if anything, proves they are natural and cyclical. Big trucks and 727's had nothing to do with great weather pattern changes in 3rd century China - which we know happened (Great Flood). Or an uncanny hail storm that proceeded (and helped fuel) the French Revolution.
Man is very arrogant in how powerful he thinks he is. But Mother Nature thinks its hilarious.
-
Actually, knowing what happened thousands of years ago proves more against Man Made Climate Change than anything.
We know there were floods, an ice age, and other catastrophic events.
No one is really arguing that. What some are simply saying is that Billy Bob's Dodge Ram, Carnegie's steel factories, Coal burning and Vanderbilt's railroads are NOT the reason for these natural events - cooling, warming, volcanos, weather patterns, whatever. These are cyclical events that have been happening since we could observe it.
The technology to be able to see things that happened before the industrial revolution, if anything, proves they are natural and cyclical. Big trucks and 727's had nothing to do with great weather pattern changes in 3rd century China - which we know happened (Great Flood). Or an uncanny hail storm that proceeded (and helped fuel) the French Revolution.
Man is very arrogant in how powerful he thinks he is. But Mother Nature thinks its hilarious.
I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that climate change is being caused by technological advancements.
-
I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that climate change is being caused by technological advancements.
If its natural and normal and cyclical -- which I freely accept -- then what's the drama?
-
I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that climate change is being caused by technological advancements.
Yes you are. Who made those things? Al Gore and the man made climate change crowd blames everything on exhaust emissions from automobiles, trains and factories. I believe tarheel even referenced the term and corrected Chad a few replies back.
-
If its natural and normal and cyclical -- which I freely accept -- then what's the drama?
Ding Ding Ding. Thread ovah
-
Ding Ding Ding. Thread ovah
Wasn't hard really. They kind of walked into it.
-
Wasn't hard really. They kind of walked into it.
No. Walking is what they all want me to do....Oh and live in a mud hut.
-
No. Walking is what they all want me to do....Oh and live in a mud hut.
Oh you mean the same walking and mud huts that were common 1000 years ago when this same weather shit was happening?
-
Y'all are either functionally retarded or intentionally obtuse.
I know which one.
Either way, you can't read a simple graph.
CO2 has skyrocketed since 1950.
I don't understand. Are you denying that combustion of fossil fuels emits CO2? Are you denying that humans burn natural gas, oil, coal, diesel, gasoline, etc.? Do you just not understand that CO2 is emitted when those things are used?
(http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/gases-co2.png)
The frustrating thing is, I could post a link and educate you, but you certainly wouldn't read it because ignorance is bliss I guess.
-
Y'all are either functionally retarded or intentionally obtuse.
I know which one.
Either way, you can't read a simple graph.
CO2 has skyrocketed since 1950.
I don't understand. Are you denying that combustion of fossil fuels emits CO2? Are you denying that humans burn natural gas, oil, coal, diesel, gasoline, etc.? Do you just not understand that CO2 is emitted when those things are used?
(http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/gases-co2.png)
The frustrating thing is, I could post a link and educate you, but you certainly wouldn't read it because ignorance is bliss I guess.
Cow farts. Saw a study about those one time.
-
Cow farts. Saw a study about those one time.
Monitor. You owe me one.
-
And yet every study shows the biggest producer of CO2 to be.....
COWS!
Damn. We came up with the same response at the same time.
-
Y'all are either functionally retarded.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Triangle-obtuse.svg/460px-Triangle-obtuse.svg.png)
By the by I think the correct term Intellectual disability.
-
Chizad, if you're so worried about the oceans rising, why do you live in the first city in the USA that will suffer if the oceans rise?
-
Chizad, if you're so worried about the oceans rising, why do you live in the first city in the USA that will suffer if the oceans rise?
Or a better question is why did we waste money rebuilding a city that will flood again?
-
Or a better question is why did we waste money rebuilding a city that will flood again?
The Saints are cheaters
-
The Saints are cheaters
Lock the thread now. Over. No really.
-
Chizad, if you're so worried about the oceans rising, why do you live in the first city in the USA that will suffer if the oceans rise?
He's not worried about himself, he just wants to control what you do, you styrofoam using, truck driving, coal burning, dirt bag
-
If its natural and normal and cyclical -- which I freely accept -- then what's the drama?
Preparation.
There's a hurricane coming. It's normal. Does that mean we shouldn't provide news coverage? Not board up the windows? Not evacuate? Not devote extensive scientific inquiry to understanding hurricanes fully? Not devote resources to better preparing for the future of hurricanes?
-
Preparation.
There's a hurricane coming. It's normal. Does that mean we shouldn't provide news coverage? Not board up the windows? Not evacuate? Not devote extensive scientific inquiry to understanding hurricanes fully? Not devote resources to better preparing for the future of hurricanes?
This is exactly why I built my underground fortified castle in an undisclosed mountain. The man tried to tell you bitches.
-
Preparation.
There's a hurricane coming. It's normal. Does that mean we shouldn't provide news coverage? Not board up the windows? Not evacuate? Not devote extensive scientific inquiry to understanding hurricanes fully? Not devote resources to better preparing for the future of hurricanes?
How about we start understanding them by not living in a hole?
-
How about we start understanding them by not living in a hole?
Who's advocating living in a hole?
-
Preparation.
There's a hurricane coming. It's normal. Does that mean we shouldn't provide news coverage? Not board up the windows? Not evacuate? Not devote extensive scientific inquiry to understanding hurricanes fully? Not devote resources to better preparing for the future of hurricanes?
From all we have been able to gather, the only preparation will be that we have to move our beach chairs back a couple of feet from the ocean.
Damn man. WALL-E was just a movie!
-
Who's advocating living in a hole?
I like holes. Well, not just any hole but some holes.
-
Who's advocating living in a hole?
It's ok but one must be neatly trimmed
-
Preparation.
There's a hurricane coming. It's normal. Does that mean we shouldn't provide news coverage? Not board up the windows? Not evacuate? Not devote extensive scientific inquiry to understanding hurricanes fully? Not devote resources to better preparing for the future of hurricanes?
But that's crazy. It's gonna change. Will change again. It will even out.
Pangea.
We don't control it.
Here's the thing. These same so-called "experts" in the 1970s were convinced that the sun was growing weaker, pollution was blocking the rays from reaching the earth and the planet was headed for an ice age the likes of which we could not fathom. There would be no farmland to speak of, we'd all have to crowd into the meager arable land that would remain and humanity was at stake. Would our race survive?
So we formed the EPA. We added emissions controls. Factories were regulated into extinction. We cleaned this, scrubbed that, sent our union and mid-wage jobs off to Mexico because companies couldn't afford to meet the ridiculous regulatory requirements. We spent trillions putting up nuclear plants.
Ice age averted!! Oooooops. Beach Age coming. Same experts, interpreting data in a different way to keep themselves employed, keep their research funded, keep sucking off the taxpayer teat.
It's smoke and mirrors. Consider this:
This winter, the maximum total Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to be 19.47 million square kilometres, which is 3.6% above the winter average calculated from 1981 to 2010.
There's your fact.
But rather than looking at that basic fact and trying to determine why they may be WRONG, "scientists" instead are searching for ways this could possibly actually support their erroneous and unsupportable "global warming" stance. Rather than examine the facts as they are, they start with a statement of fact (erroneous) and then try to force everything else to fit that statement -- while disregarding/jettisoning anything that contradicts it. It's the same principle they used to write their doctoral theses. Take only the information that supports their document and either ignore or discredit the rest.
The entire process is flawed.
One day those of you beating the global warming drum will wake up and see it for what it is. A money and power grab.
-
The left’s use of pseudo-science as a means to seize and centralize control has a colorful history.
Let’s fast forward to the 1970s, when we were entering a new ice age and the only possible solution was – surprise - more government power. The global cooling panic morphed into the global warming panic. Suddenly, temperatures were inexorably rising and the ice caps were melting. In fact, they should be melted by now.
But “global warming†is problematic when the uncherry-picked evidence shows that the Earth is not getting significantly warmer. The hockey stick is stuck. Now, one might take this new evidence and revise one’s conclusion to conform to the observed data. We call that science. But we are dealing with “science,†and when the evidence doesn’t support your conclusion you change the name of the phenomenon.
Hence, “climate change.†Its goal was stop us wacky literalists from being able to point to a lack of warming to disprove global warming. Apparently, we were fools to expect that what the scammers called “warming†might involve warming.
“Climate change†is useful because it minimizes the dangerous possibility of negating the theory through observation. Any kind of change in the weather is “climate change.†That means literally any evidence supports the theory. If you really want to tick off a scammer, ask him what piece of observable data would lead him to conclude that his climate change theory is incorrect.
Of course, in science, an unfalsifiable theory isn’t a theory at all. But in “science,†you aren’t really talking about theories. You are talking about politically necessary conclusions that are beyond question. “Science†is a religion, and we’re the heretics.
But even “climate change†has become problematic. What if the climate is not changing for the worse? Recent years have seen fewer hurricanes, and of less intensity. The Antarctic ice the penguins stood on while laughing at the trapped ship of fools was manifestly still there. Polar bears continue to wander the northern wastes uncooked.
So the left has now moved to an even vaguer, less empirically assessable concept – looming “climate collapse.†It’s a beautiful notion, at once evoking some sort of horrendous catastrophe while offering absolutely no way to evaluate its accuracy. The “climate collapse†remains off in the future, vague and ambiguous, an unspecified disaster where something bad might happen and no one can prove the negative, so there is no way to judge it to be fact or fiction.
This is “science.†And if you doubt that something of an undefined nature might possibly occur at some unknown point in the future and maybe have unexplained negative effects, you reject “science†in all its forms. You also probably believe in God and are definitely racist.
Climate change scam arguments pique my lawyerly interest as exemplar tactics, techniques and procedures in the art of obfuscation. But the nomenclature isn’t the only bit of dissembling. The scammers attempt to intertwine the idea that human activity has some sort of impact on the climate with their demand that we transfer to their control trillions of dollars and much of our sovereignty. They intentionally erase the distinction between the cause of the alleged problem and the proposed solution, neatly skipping the effect.
Scammers tell us that 97% of scientists believe humans have an effect on the climate. Of course humans have some effect on the climate. A butterfly’s flapping wings have some effect on the climate. But the mere fact of some effect of some unknown intensity does not lead to the conclusion that we must undertake an anti-carbon crusade that will jack up our utility bills several grand a year, force us to drive tiny boxes, and empower yet another army of prissy unionized bureaucrats, this time to tell us we can’t roast marshmallows in our own backyards.
If you believe in science, you can’t make that quantum leap of logic. But if you believe in “science,†you and your media pals will paint anyone who refuses to do so as a mouth-breathing halfwit “denier†who is simultaneously an evil genius in the service of Big Oil.
Oh, how “scientists†hate deniers for actually applying the scientific method to the scammers’ political propaganda. And, as fiascos like Operation Mocking Penguin pile up, and as the coming climate collapse never actually comes, they’ll get even more desperate. The Los Angeles Times and Reddit recently barred dissenters from their pages – there’s no better concession of defeat than silencing your opponent.
The science is settled that “climate change†was a lie from the beginning. And every day without the long-promised climate catastrophe is one day closer to the day leftists will have to find themselves a replacement scam.
-
Just so I can chime in on this topic and make myself feel smart...
I would advocate living in holes if they were Hobbit holes. Those seem pretty comfy.
If getting rid of styrofoam will benefit the planet, make it so. In fact, I vote that we ban styrofoam that is not covered in plastic and serving as the insulation in beer coolers. Cups, gone. Raw syrofoam coolers, gone. That shit florists use? Gone. Styrofoam gets on my nerves.
The Saints (except Ben and Will) cheated.
We are currently in an ice age here at my house. That is because it is January, not because of the fact that I drive an SUV.
-
Jus' lahk ever' other year.
http://www.abc3340.com/story/24509249/noaa-world-in-2013-was-4th-hottest-on-record (http://www.abc3340.com/story/24509249/noaa-world-in-2013-was-4th-hottest-on-record)
NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record
Posted: Jan 21, 2014 1:07 PM CST Updated: Jan 21, 2014 1:15 PM CST
(http://wbma.images.worldnow.com/images/24509249_BG1.jpg)
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Last year was tied for the fourth warmest year on record around the world.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday released its global temperature figures for 2013. The average world temperature was 58.12 degrees (14.52 Celsius) tying with 2003 for the fourth warmest since 1880.
NASA, which calculates records in a different manner, said Tuesday that 2013 was the seventh warmest on record, with an average temperature of 58.3 degrees (14.6 Celsius).
Both agencies said nine of the 10th warmest years on record have happened in the 21st century. The hottest year was 2010.
A global insurance firm says there were 41 billion-dollar weather disasters last year. Unlike 2012, most of the heat and disasters were outside the United States.
Top 10 Warmest Years (1880–2013)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 10 warmest years on record.
Rank
1 = Warmest
Period of Record: 1880–2013 Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1 2010 0.66 1.19
2 2005 0.65 1.17
3 1998 0.63 1.13
4 (tie)* 2013 0.62 1.12
4 (tie)* 2003 0.62 1.12
6 2002 0.61 1.10
7 2006 0.60 1.08
8 (tie)* 2009 0.59 1.07
8 (tie)* 2007 0.59 1.06
10 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.04
10 (tie) 2012 0.57 1.03
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201313.gif)
Click to enlarge (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201313.gif)
-
2010? Must have been Cam's smile that melted the polar ice caps.
-
According to your own reference material, the world does appear to be flat.
-
Cows. They do fart.
So WHAT if its "warmer". You're still talking about a data sample that goes back to only 1880. That's completely insignificant in the history of the world.
Things go in cycles. Period. If we are in a warming cycle -- so be it. It's worth nothing that in the 1970s these same scientists were talking about the coldest weather since doo and dah.
It gets warmer. It gets colder. It's a CYCLE.
You're just making yourself look foolish.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1557701_10151921343476700_372801152_n.jpg)
-
So now global warming DECREASES storm activity and extreme weather. I don't know what to believe anymore :thumsup: :thumsup: :thumsup: :thump:
And it's even peer reviewed :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/new-study-suggests-global-warming-decreases-storm-activity-and-extreme-weather/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/new-study-suggests-global-warming-decreases-storm-activity-and-extreme-weather/)
-
James Spann said there would just be a "light dusting" in Birmingham and mocked the "hysteria" of being prepared for the weather.
Currently it is pure chaos in Birmingham. Thousands of people stranded in frozen cars on the highways. People abandoning their cars to hike dozens of miles through the snowstorm. A multitude of cars in ditches, flipped over, and even at least one on fire.
Clearly, listening to Spann's infinite meteorological wisdom and scoffing at the idea of preparation in the face of disaster is a good idea.
-
James Spann said there would just be a "light dusting" in Birmingham and mocked the "hysteria" of being prepared for the weather.
Currently it is pure chaos in Birmingham. Thousands of people stranded in frozen cars on the highways. People abandoning their cars to hike dozens of miles through the snowstorm. A multitude of cars in ditches, flipped over, and even at least one on fire.
Clearly, listening to Spann's infinite meteorological wisdom and scoffing at the idea of preparation in the face of disaster is a good idea.
You told us to be prepared for Global warming. Now you scoff that we are not prepared for the cold. Thanks
-
You told us to be prepared for Global warming. Now you scoff that we are not prepared for the cold. Thanks
I could repeat myself for the 200th time in this thread, but you'll ignore it again.
A new link for you to ignore so you can think you don't sound like a complete idiot when you sarcastically snark "global war in' mah ass!"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/28/sneauxmageddon_polar_vortex_why_snow_s_melting_in_alaska_and_pelting_the.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/28/sneauxmageddon_polar_vortex_why_snow_s_melting_in_alaska_and_pelting_the.html)
-
I could repeat myself for the 200th time in this thread, but you'll ignore it again.
No. It's not ignored. You've just been wrong 200 consecutive times and refuse to acknowledge it.
If it's too hot? Global warming
Too cold? Global warming.
Too wet? Global warming.
Too dry? Global warming.
You're not looking objectively. You've taken a position and are making everything adapt to that position rather than looking at the facts and forcing whatever occurs to fit that position.
Two of the coldest years on record in Antarctica have been in the last five. The ice isn't shrinking, it's actually growing.
And "peer reviewed" is utter dogshit. It's like asking a panel of bama fans to review Sabans performance and choose the teams to play in the championship game.
-
No. It's not ignored. You've just been wrong 200 consecutive times and refuse to acknowledge it.
If it's too hot? Global warming
Too cold? Global warming.
Too wet? Global warming.
Too dry? Global warming.
You're not looking objectively. You've taken a position and are making everything adapt to that position rather than looking at the facts and forcing whatever occurs to fit that position.
Two of the coldest years on record in Antarctica have been in the last five. The ice isn't shrinking, it's actually growing.
And "peer reviewed" is utter dogshit. It's like asking a panel of bama fans to review Sabans performance and choose the teams to play in the championship game.
You: "Stars are the spirits of our dead ancestors looking over us at all times to keep us safe."
Me: "No, scientifically speaking they're actually luminous balls of gas held together by their own gravity. You see, the luminescence is formed through the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium."
You: "Blahdy blah blah. Science schmiance. Just because it's in one of those fancy "Science books" don't make it so. How are you going to tell me it's some made-up "nuclear fusion" thingamabob when I can SEE them in front of my face. I ain't never seen a hydrogen! I've popped one-a-them helium balloons and didn't see ANYTHING come out!"
It is a fact that the Polar Vortex is caused by polar jetstreams dipping lower than normal due to decreased speeds. It is also a fact that these jet streams are driven by the difference in temperature between high latitudes and low latitudes. You can choose to believe that these decreased speeds are due to the wind fairies choosing to intentionally slow them down. Or you can believe that George W. Bush got drunk and started fucking with his weather machine again. Or you can believe that Santa is behind it all in some elaborate rouse to relocate out of the North Pole. Or you could believe what 99.9% of climate scientists believe, which is that the melting of arctic sea ice is warming the higher latitudes at a greater rate than the lower latitudes, which weakens the stream, and causes the dip.
Actually take the 7 minutes and 10 seconds to watch this video that clearly explains this at a level a third grader can understand, or continue to be an idiot.
http://youtu.be/u7EHvfaY8Zs (http://youtu.be/u7EHvfaY8Zs)
But aside from all that, I find it particularly hilarious that you choose to rally behind the lone voice in the wilderness of meteorologists who refuse to accept the science climate change, because today he's been proven to be a fucking idiot. Not only was he wrong about it, he was equally as brazen about it as he is about climate change. He mocked those trying to prepare for the storm and said it would be nothing more than a "light dusting". When asked on Twitter if Tuscaloosa would get any snow and if people should prepare, he responded: "We do not expect accumulation in Tuscaloosa. http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=78447 (http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=78447) People often don’t listen to what we say." (Link (https://twitter.com/spann/status/427934047407710209)) Well, for good reason people don't listen to your stupid ass. Because this is what happens when they do.
This was "no accumulation" Tuscaloosa today:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfFDYXiIQAAaT5C.jpg)
Here's others from Birmingham:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfFqDR-IUAAtFqb.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfGidaQIUAAHVD0.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfGcJ9HCQAAdKPG.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfGI1L0IMAAKVk5.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfGVgX_CUAAuWdn.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfFvPQXIUAEMXd9.jpg)
My facebook timeline is littered with stories just like THS's where people are having to spend the night at work, many leaving babies at home. Would not be surprised if there is a death toll when all is said and done.
Because James Spann told everyone to chill out. NBD. Go to work. No need to freak out. I don't care what those other "meteorologists" say, it's not gonna be anything to worry about.
If you don't see the irony in this being a microcosm of his position on climate change, and the dangers of stubbornly maintaining said position, then your brain is broken.
-
Hey Chizad, here is the $200,000 question:
1. Is the earth going to warm over the next 100 years
2. Is the earth going to cool over the next 100 years
3. Is the earth simply going to change over the next 100 years
By choosing #3 (which is what all your peer reviewed climate scientists have done) you can be right either way and continue to get funded ad infinitem.
I would have much more respect for your climate changers if you would just pick a side and go with it.
-
Hey Chizad, here is the $200,000 question:
1. Is the earth going to warm over the next 100 years
2. Is the earth going to cool over the next 100 years
3. Is the earth simply going to change over the next 100 years
By choosing #3 (which is what all your peer reviewed climate scientists have done) you can be right either way and continue to get funded ad infinitem.
I would have much more respect for your climate changers if you would just pick a side and go with it.
But that's not science. You don't pick a side and go with it. You try to accumulate observations, formulate hypotheses, and test them for a conclusion.
It's K's type that picks a side and goes with it. He's decided there is no climate change and if there is, it's not worth studying. It's not worth preparing for. It's all a scam.
-
But that's not science. You don't pick a side and go with it. You try to accumulate observations, formulate hypotheses, and test them for a conclusion.
It's K's type that picks a side and goes with it. He's decided there is no climate change and if there is, it's not worth studying. It's not worth preparing for. It's all a scam.
I don't think Kaos said it didnt exist. He's looking at the bigger picture in that this stuff has been happening for years and not caused by man and his modern inventions. Natural and cyclical is different than saying it's caused by f 150s, coal and styrofoam. It's not hard really.
-
Natural.
Normal.
Cyclical.
Period.
-
Natural.
Normal.
Cyclical.
Period.
Still.
Worthy.
Of.
Being.
Studied.
With.
Studies.
That.
Are.
Funded.
And.
Overseen.
By.
Reputable.
Scientists.
In.
Order.
To.
Help.
Prepare.
For.
The consequences of climate change. Tornadoes are natural. I'm sure you're happy and supportive of the technology that helps tell you to get into a shelter prior to it blowing over your house. Hurricanes are natural. Normal. Cyclical. I'm sure you're glad that we understand them well enough to know when we need to evacuate.
-
Because James Spann told everyone to chill out. NBD. Go to work. No need to freak out. I don't care what those other "meteorologists" say, it's not gonna be anything to worry about.
If you don't see the irony in this being a microcosm of his position on climate change, and the dangers of stubbornly maintaining said position, then your brain is broken.
So, is it global warming or James Spann? I'm not following who is officially at fault here. But, hell, anyone should be able to see how global warming caused this ice storm. I guess.
-
Natural.
Normal.
Cyclical.
Period.
Not really. They have already studied it. You know what their conclusion was.
WE NEED MORE FREAKING MONEY.
So they can study how to get MORE FREAKING MONEY.
-
Not really. They have already studied it. You know what their conclusion was.
WE NEED MORE FREAKING MONEY.
So they can study how to get MORE FREAKING MONEY.
Wasting your time. Some people are so blinded by their need to appear intellectually superior that they continually change the argument to meet their needs.
It's the height of arrogance -- and coincidentally the same tactic employed by the assclowns like Al Gore -- to proclaim that anyone who doesn't share their erroneous opinion is an illiterate, uneducated rube. That's how they draw "peers" into the web. "Accept this fraudulent position or you will be professionally scorned." It's how they snow (pun intended) the public.
It's easy to create a bogus philosophy when every event is artificially used to reinforce it.
Watch and learn:
The ACC is the strongest conference in college football.
Why?
Two teams won bowl games toward the end of bowl season.
But eight other teams lost.
Proves the strength of the league schedule. There was parity. And those teams were all matched against top teams from other divisions.
But the league was about .500 overall.
Right. Beating up on each other.
But FSU beat Clemson by 40.
Right. It was an anomaly. Lee Corso predicted a close game. Do you want to be aligned with Corso?
Any team in the ACC can suddenly become a major power for a day.
-
Guess this guy just said, fuck it, I'm not gonna just sit here and freeze.
-
Natural.
Normal.
Cyclical.
Period.
(http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2013/01/tampon-on-orange-background.jpg)
-
(http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2013/01/tampon-on-orange-background.jpg)
Oh cool. A firecracker.
-
Wasting your time. Some people are so blinded by their need to appear intellectually superior that they continually change the argument to meet their needs.
It's the height of arrogance -- and coincidentally the same tactic employed by the assclowns like Al Gore -- to proclaim that anyone who doesn't share their erroneous opinion is an illiterate, uneducated rube. That's how they draw "peers" into the web. "Accept this fraudulent position or you will be professionally scorned." It's how they snow (pun intended) the public.
It's easy to create a bogus philosophy when every event is artificially used to reinforce it.
How is it artificial? I'm sorry if I "appear intellectually superior" because I can understand a very simple meteorological concept that can clearly and easily be explained in a 7 minute YouTube video.
Believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around you personally, and there is more than one climate on Earth. We, the Southern United States, i.e. "you" are experiencing unseasonable, unnatural, and certainly not "normal" extreme colds BECAUSE the temperatures in higher latitudes are unseasonably, unnaturally, and certainly not "normally" warmer, which is slowing down the jet stream and causing these polar vortexes. It's not inconsistent. It is scientific. If it weren't consistent then scientists, who don't think the way you do with bullheaded certainty, would not be virtually unanimous in recognizing the consistency.
To put it in kindergarten terms, if you put water in a bucket and swung it around, the water wouldn't leak, because the centrifugal force would keep it in the bucket. If you slowed down the speed in which you swung the bucket enough, the water would start to leak out. Science has proven that the jet streams are propelled by the drastic difference in temperatures. Science has proven that the arctic region is getting warmer due to melting ice caps. Science has proven that this slows down the jet stream. Science has proven that this causes the stream to "wobble" per se, and dip considerably further south.
Hence the extreme cold. So yes, you sound like a fucking idiot when you say "Global warming my ass". Because they are absolutely directly related. It's not a difficult concept at all if you allow any information permeate your skull for one second.
Serious question. There are three possibilities.
1) You didn't read any of the links or watch the video, or even read anything I've said on the subject whatsoever.
2) You read it, but the simple 5th grade-science-class level concept is too much for you to grasp.
3) You so distrust science that you choose to not believe ANY conclusions drawn from scientific methods. You don't believe in jet streams, how they're formed, or what causes their deviated paths.
Which is it?
-
So 490 years ago it never snowed or got this cold "in the south"?
-
How is it artificial? I'm sorry if I "appear intellectually superior" because I can understand a very simple meteorological concept that can easily clearly and easily be explained in a 7 minute YouTube video.
Believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around you personally, and there is more than one climate on Earth. We, the Southern United States, i.e. "you" are experiencing unseasonable, unnatural, and certainly not "normal" extreme colds BECAUSE the temperatures in higher latitudes are unseasonably, unnaturally, and certainly not "normally" warmer, which is slowing down the jet stream and causing these polar vortexes. It's not inconsistent. It is scientific. If it weren't consistent then scientists, who don't think the way you do with bullheaded certainty, would not be virtually unanimous in recognizing the consistency.
To put it in kindergarten terms, if you put water in a bucket and swung it around, the water wouldn't leak, because the centrifugal force would keep it in the bucket. If you slowed down the speed in which you swung the bucket enough, the water would start to leak out. Science has proven that the jet streams are propelled by the drastic difference in temperatures. Science has proven that the arctic region is getting warmer due to melting ice caps. Science has proven that this slows down the jet stream. Science has proven that this causes the stream to "wobble" per se, and dip considerably further south.
Hence the extreme cold. So yes, you sound like a fudgeing idiot when you say "Global warming my ass". Because they are absolutely directly related. It's not a difficult concept at all if you allow any information permeate your skull for one second.
Serious question. There are three possibilities.
1) You didn't read any of the links or watch the video, or even anything I've said on the subject whatsoever.
2) You read it, but the simple 5th grade-science-class level concept is too much for you to grasp.
3) You so distrust science that you choose to not believe ANY conclusions drawn from scientific methods. You don't believe in jet streams, how they're formed, or what causes their deviated paths.
Which is it?
I would say C.
-
I like The Big Bang Theory
-
How is it artificial? I'm sorry if I "appear intellectually superior" because I can understand a very simple meteorological concept that can clearly and easily be explained in a 7 minute YouTube video.
Believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around you personally, and there is more than one climate on Earth. We, the Southern United States, i.e. "you" are experiencing unseasonable, unnatural, and certainly not "normal" extreme colds BECAUSE the temperatures in higher latitudes are unseasonably, unnaturally, and certainly not "normally" warmer, which is slowing down the jet stream and causing these polar vortexes. It's not inconsistent. It is scientific. If it weren't consistent then scientists, who don't think the way you do with bullheaded certainty, would not be virtually unanimous in recognizing the consistency.
To put it in kindergarten terms, if you put water in a bucket and swung it around, the water wouldn't leak, because the centrifugal force would keep it in the bucket. If you slowed down the speed in which you swung the bucket enough, the water would start to leak out. Science has proven that the jet streams are propelled by the drastic difference in temperatures. Science has proven that the arctic region is getting warmer due to melting ice caps. Science has proven that this slows down the jet stream. Science has proven that this causes the stream to "wobble" per se, and dip considerably further south.
Hence the extreme cold. So yes, you sound like a fudgeing idiot when you say "Global warming my ass". Because they are absolutely directly related. It's not a difficult concept at all if you allow any information permeate your skull for one second.
Serious question. There are three possibilities.
1) You didn't read any of the links or watch the video, or even read anything I've said on the subject whatsoever.
2) You read it, but the simple 5th grade-science-class level concept is too much for you to grasp.
3) You so distrust science that you choose to not believe ANY conclusions drawn from scientific methods. You don't believe in jet streams, how they're formed, or what causes their deviated paths.
Which is it?
D.
It's all made up to justify studies, funding and global governmental control.
Ten years from now when this entire fraud is completely debunked -- as the ice age scare of the 70s thoroughly was -- there will be a new scare from these same think tanks, left-leaning big government wackos, and scientists who've taken the same data and concocted a completely new theory as to what it means. And it will -- again -- be a doomsday scenario "unless we do something different". What that something different turns out to be depends on whose money they want to steal away.
Cyclical. It's a funny little word yet so very hard for you to grasp.
What's happening now has happened before and will happen again. Climate changes. How else do you explain fossilized shark remains in river banks in Walker County? Things will get hotter. Things will get cooler. Things will change.
These "scientists" are driven by their own hubris and they tap into yours -- we are so important we can change the entire world!! We can alter the climate!!! We can control it!!!
Horse manure. They take natural occurrences that have been naturally occurring for MILLIONS of years and ascribe their own batshit theories to them in order to arrive a a conclusion that keeps them employed and funded.
Climate changes. It's called Mother Nature. Shut up and enjoy her show.
-
Still.
Worthy.
Of.
Being.
Studied.
With.
Studies.
That.
Are.
Funded.
And.
Overseen.
By.
Reputable.
Scientists.
In.
Order.
To.
Help.
Prepare.
For.
The consequences of climate change. Tornadoes are natural. I'm sure you're happy and supportive of the technology that helps tell you to get into a shelter prior to it blowing over your house. Hurricanes are natural. Normal. Cyclical. I'm sure you're glad that we understand them well enough to know when we need to evacuate.
There is your problem. No neutral parties where money is involved.
-
No need to argue any more. I saw a clip from the SOTU the other night and Barack told us Climate Change was a fact.
Argument over
-
No need to argue any more. I saw a clip from the SOTU the other night and Barack told us Climate Change was a fact.
Argument over
That's where they get you. When they realized "global warming" was a complete and total farce, they changed tactics. Started talking about "climate change" so that ANY difference in weather patterns -- colder, hotter, drier, wetter, calmer, stormier, windier, muggier, cloudier, sunnier, whatever -- would trigger hand-wringing and pleas for funding to study what effect the climate change has on the world.
Guess what? Climate change has been NATURALLY OCCURRING for millions (if not billions) of years. It changes. It will ALWAYS change.
It's not because too many cows fart, because I drive ten miles to the store instead of getting a farting horse to ride, because dinosaurs farted, because people burn wood in their fireplaces, because people burn coal in their stoves, because people use hairspray on their hair, because people use gas ovens to execute other people or anything like that.
Climate change occurs. You bet it does. It's going to keep on changing well after we are all dead and gone from here.
The only thing that has any impact on it at all is all the hot air coming from Al Gore's green legion.
-
Global Warming...er...Climate Change is and always has been about one thing - wealth redistribution. All of the communists from eras gone by didn't just disappear. They hitched their wagon to the religion that is environmentalism. What better way to punish those evil capitalist pigs than to shut them down? And what easier way to do it with the support of the dumb masses for the sake of good ol' Mother Earth? Case in point, just look at what's happened to the coal industry under our current administration.
If Al Gore really believed the crap he is spewing he'd be living in a carbon-neutral adobe hut and driving a Prius. He stated just 6 or 7 years ago that by 2013 the Arctic would be "ice free," and instead ice cover has expanded by 50%. As has already been mentioned - all of the scientists sit at the government feeding trough looking for more grant money so they can continue to study global warming...er...climate change. What do you think they are going to find? If I was receiving $100,000 a year to study whether earthworms were the cause of sinkholes in Florida you better believe I'm going to do everything possible to tie the two together to keep the paychecks coming.
Look, nobody is saying that we shouldn't take good care of the earth. No one is saying that you ought to be out there dumping used motor oil into rivers and radioactive waste into landfills. People here are actually agreeing that the climate is changing, as it has since the beginning of time.
However, let's call a spade a spade. The UN Climate Chief recently did:
UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming
1/15/2014
United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.
China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right†when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.
“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,†she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.â€
Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental†to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.
Communism was responsible for the deaths of about 94 million people in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe in the 20th Century. China alone was responsible for 65 million of those deaths under communist rule.
Environmentalists often hail China as a model for fighting global warming, since they are a “leader†in renewable energy. The country set a goal of getting 15 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020. In 2012, China got 9 percent of its power from renewables — the U.S. by contrast got 11 percent in 2012.
However, the country still gets 90 percent of its power from fossil fuels, mostly from coal. In fact, Chinese coal demand is expected to explode as the country continues to develop. China has approved 100 million metric tons of new coal production capacity in 2013 as part of the government’s plan to bring 860 million metric tons of coal production online by 2015.
China has publicly made big efforts to clean up its environment. The country’s booming industrial apparatus has caused so much pollution that the skies have been darkened over major cities and the air quality has heavily deteriorated.
The Wall Street Journal notes that China’s air quality was so bad that about “1.2 million people died prematurely in China in 2010 as a result of air pollution†and Chinese government figures show that “lung cancer is now the leading cause of death from malignant tumors. Many of those dying are nonsmokers.â€
The Soviet bloc’s environmental track record was similarly dismal.
The Communist Party’s National Action Plan spent $275 billion to combat rampant pollution through 2017, including reducing particulate matter 2.5 levels in the Beijing region by 25 percent.
Link (http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz2s0nnlYJE)
-
The site below cites some data from NOAA, and has some pretty good information. I don't know anything about Plantseed, but the information that they give is a pretty good sample size.....the past 425,000 years. I think part of the problem with some data that you see is they look at the past 50-70 years. In the grand scheme of things, that isn't shit.
http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/co2-and-temperature-change (http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/co2-and-temperature-change)
(http://www.planetseed.com/files/uploadedimages/Science/Earth_Science/Global_Climate_Change_and_Energy/Related_Articles/carbon_dioxide(1).jpg)
-
Global Warming strikes again. from teh foxnews. I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!! I also have no idea how to use the quote function to post stories, so I annoy the piss out of others. I like male genatalia in and around my mouth.
Hell may not freeze over, but experts say Lake Superior could this winter, for the first time this century.
The world's largest freshwater lake was 87.1 percent iced over as of Tuesday, and could soon be virtually covered, thanks to an unrelenting winter in which the mercury has fallen even harder than snow, leaving ice several feet thick in some areas.
"It'll approach 100 percent, but it'll never quite get there," said Steve Colman, director of University of Minnesota's Large Lakes Observatory in Duluth, Minn. "And it doesn't do that very often."
Colman told FoxNews.com that the region has been "locked into" a brutal cold snap, setting an all-time record for consecutive days below zero. In a typical winter, just 30 percent of the massive lake freezes over, though the icing can range greatly from year to year. Due to smaller pockets of open water, the entire lake is not expected to completely freeze over, he said.
“It’s probably been the toughest winter we’ve had in about 24 years.â€
- Robert Lewis-Manning, Canadian Shipowners’ Association
Some 94.7 percent of Lake Superior froze over in 1979, effectively a complete icing. Professor Jay Austin, also of the University of Minnesota's Large Lakes Observatory, said he expects ice coverage to exceed the 20-year-record of 91 percent on the 31,700-square-mile lake before spring. The average thickness of the ice covering Lake Superior is already 10 inches, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Austin said once the water freezes over, it could stay cold well into summer.
“Typically, the lake will start warming up in late June, but it will be August before we see that this year,†Jay Austin told CNSNews.com, adding that the “extraordinary cold†has led to ice several feet thick in some parts of the lake.
The all-time record for ice coverage of all the Great Lakes is 94.7 percent in 1979. But Lake Superior, the biggest of the five, is typically the last to ice over. In 1994, the last time it came close, 91 percent of its surface iced over. Lake Erie, conversely, is the shallowest of the lakes and freezes nearly every year.
"It certainly has been a while since we've seen this much ice this early," George Leshkevich, of NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, told the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
Forecasters noted that Duluth, Minn., recently experienced 23 consecutive days of subzero temperatures, besting the previous all-time record of 22 days set in 1936 and 1963, according to the National Weather Service.
The Coast Guard is mandated to keep shipping lanes on the Great Lakes open during the 42-week shipping season, which ended last month. This year, the Coast Guard's Great Lakes ice breaker, Mackinaw, worked overtime to cut through the ice for some 57 U.S.-flag vessels that ply the Great Lakes, laden with raw materials such as iron ore and fluxstone for the steel industry, limestone and cement for the construction industry, coal for power generation, as well as salt, sand and grain.
The vessels transport more than 115 million tons of cargo per year, sustain more than 103,000 jobs and have an economic impact of more than $20 billion, according to the Lake Carriers Association.
“It’s probably been the toughest winter we’ve had in about 24 years,†Robert Lewis-Manning, president of the Canadian Shipowners’ Association, recently told Global News. “I think the speed at which the lakes froze this year, and not just the lakes but right up to the St. Lawrence River…was very, very early.â€
The shipping season is due to resume in early March.
Meanwhile, across the South on Wednesday, residents awoke to a region encased in ice, snow and freezing rain, as forecasters warned that the worst of a potentially “catastrophic†storm was yet to come. From Texas to the Carolinas to Atlanta, roads were slick with ice, thousands remained without power, and a wintry mix fell in many areas. The Mid-Atlantic region also was expected to be hit as the storm crawled east. Forecasters in several states used unusually dire language in warnings, saying the biggest concern is widespread ice, which could knock out power for days in wide areas.
On the flip side, the lowest ice accumulation across the Great Lakes occurred in 2002, when just 9.5 percent of the surface froze solid.
FoxNews.com's Joshua Rhett Miller and The Associated Press contributed to this report.