Proof Global Warming Exists!!!!

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of your inane rambling.
*Bunch of stuff I don't understand so it's rambling.*

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the earth will get warmer and cooler several times in the next 100,000 years Brilliant conclusion!
*Oh hey, something I can understand!*

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Say what you will about Peter Sinclair, at least he's coherent.

Yeah, and charismatic, too. Also dead wrong, because he doesn't have the slightest idea about earth science, and climate...a fact made clear in his attack against Anthony Watts, an AMS seal holder. Now Anthony isn't really an "expert" either, but he's at least knowledgeable enough on the subject at hand to make a few solid conclusions. More than I can say for Peter.

In regards to Mr. Watts:

Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has said that he was aware of Watts' work and invites anyone with expertise to contribute to the scientific process. Elsewhere, he has stated that the evidence for human-driven warming remains robust, however.

The Times monthly science magazine "Eureka" named WUWT one of the top 30 science blogs, calling it "one of the more entertainingly [sic] skeptic blogs," and in 2008 it won best science blog in The Weblog Awards (Bloggies).


Peter makes pretty pictures and cool sound effects, though. I'm guessing that's what caught your attention.

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How are you drawing your conclusions, exactly?

Various studies and reports, primarily from scientific journals, because this is the subject for my dissertation...and that's - at least - a formula that works in relation to speaking on the subject. I didn't want to wave the education flag, but you asked.

How are you drawing yours, exactly? Oh wait...Peter Sinclair. Never mind.

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You disregard all the evidence from authority that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas...

What evidence? I'd be glad to read it and interpret the data for both you and Mr. Sinclair. Forget about the Goddard Institute charts and stuff, because I'll blow so many holes in it it'll make your head spin. Just a heads-up, bro.

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are a cookie cutter denialist.

I denied what exactly?

Furthermore, all I see from you in this thread are links and one or two-line conclusions based on...well, damned if I know. If you're that much of an expert, I'd like to see some of your own conclusions and the reasoning behind them. Since you're an expert and all.

So I can have fun shooting them down, of course. As much as I'd enjoy shooting down counter-arguments. Because...the fact is that there is not enough real evidence to support either side conclusively...at the moment. Which I said in my *cough* rambling.

I'll start with your use of satellite imagery as a rebuttal (to what, I dunno - since all I said was that heat-islands interfered with solid temperature data). Your link, rather to Peter Sinclair's use.

Satellite data is useless, because it has such a small window in the context of arguing global warming . It can tell you with accuracy what's happening this year or for the last few years, but all that tells you is what the temperatures are right now, and where the ice and snow coverage is. Unless you have something long-term to compare it with, you have no way of knowing what is "normal" or "average".

I believe you used it to deny urban heat-islands. Urban heat-islands are a fact. Hello. What actual bearing they have on global warming is up in the air, and is likely negligible. At the very least, what I said was about temperature measurement in relation to location and stability - in terms of long-term data. Go back and read it again...because I'm assuming your brain saw "urban areas" and fizzled.

More promising for your argument is thermal wind. I don't like giving this stuff away, but:

(Scientists) turned to a proxy for atmospheric temperatures that they say comes with fewer complicating factors and therefore produces less uncertainty. That proxy is wind speed. Measuring wind at different altitudes and running the data through a mathematical procedure known as the "thermal-wind equation" should give us a good idea of what the temperatures in the upper reaches of the troposphere (more or less that portion of the atmosphere where humans can breathe) really are. Fortunately, the wind and temperature measurements, although taken by the same balloons, are independent. After applying the equation, they conclude that:

'... our data do not seem to be consistent with a lack of upper-tropospheric warming in the tropics. The degree of warming remains fairly uncertain, but is within the range simulated by climate models, albeit with some discrepancies near the tropopause [top of troposphere]'.




Some fun debate here, for those interested enough to learn:


A New and Effective Model


There's a link in that article that points to Climate Realists. Some good debate in the forums there.







Funny thing about conventional wisdom. Try getting published if you hold a position counter to it at the moment.

[Stickyfingers]

Originally Posted by BeelzeBob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're missing the point. You think you've caught the scientists at the NOAA hiding behind a well know climatological force that is documented and studied every year by none other than the NOAA!?! The data the NOAA collects is poured over by every climate scientist on the planet, but you have clearly cracked the code! It is all a hoax! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I will interpret for you... this is the strongest El Nino on record, the fact that El Nino has been getting stronger is tied into the warming... these are record monthly temperature averages, averages that include previous El Nino years.

I don't think I have caught scientists doing anything lmao. I never even stated whether I believe it is real or not....however, the fact that they have even allowed controversy to seep into their studies and allow things like this to happen shows their disorganization. It is very hard for me to say that we are causing global warming, when the earth is always going through phases, just because we haven't experienced it yet, doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past. Hell, we only have accurate temperature records up to like 1899, which is an insanely small sample size for a topic as big as global warming.

An Inconvenient Truth didn't help either, what a load of garbage. Anyone with a few higher level college sciences courses could see the load of bullshit. It's basically him rambling about graphs with no context. If it wasn't for that movie, I might actually believe in global warming.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ummm NASA? http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/n...lanet-warming/
http://www.livescience.com/environme...s_warming.html
And reason we need global warming:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_g...ct_crop_yields

Meh to crops though, just means better beach weather [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Boy's in bikinis
Girls in surfboards
Everybody's rockin'
Everybody's fruggin'

Twistin' 'round the fire
Havin' fun
Bakin' potatoes
Bakin' in the sun

Put on your noseguard
Put on the lifeguard
Pass the tanning butter

Here comes a stingray
There goes a manta-ray
In walked a jelly fish
There goes a dogfish
Chased by a catfish
In flew a sea robin
Watch out for that piranha
There goes a narwhale
HERE COMES A BIKINI WHALE!

Rock Lobster = WIN

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Dumesh Uhl'Belk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Rock Lobster = WIN

He was in a jam. He's in a giant clam!!!

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So I can have fun shooting them down, of course. As much as I'd enjoy shooting down counter-arguments. Because...the fact is that there is not enough real evidence to support either side conclusively...at the moment. Which I said in my *cough* rambling.

Well my whole thing about this as with most anything is that when someone approaches me or the general population with a theory, idea, presumption, declaration, the burden of providing conclusive evidence falls upon their shoulders. This applies to global warming, climate change (their new buzz word since climategate), 911 truthers, fake moon landing crowd, or any other idea that has not been substantiated with conclusive evidence. Until there is solid proof, not just a “trust me” argument, no action should be taken, zero. No cap and trade. No Kyoto accord. No UN global warming initiative. No anything that comes down the pike.

I see nothing but a full fledged scam perpetrated by get-rich-quick power hungry con-artists, from scientists down to politicians. I say that because they try to force all this stuff on us with simply a "trust me" argument. That's indicative of a con-artist. All they need are jackboots and their attire would be complete. Prolly on layaway for the moment...

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well my whole thing about this as with most anything is that when someone approaches me or the general population with a theory, idea, presumption, declaration, the burden of providing conclusive evidence falls upon their shoulders. This applies to global warming, climate change (their new buzz word since climategate), 911 truthers, fake moon landing crowd, or any other idea that has not been substantiated with conclusive evidence. Until there is solid proof, not just a “trust me” argument, no action should be taken, zero. No cap and trade. No Kyoto accord. No UN global warming initiative. No anything that comes down the pike.

By this logic, shouldn't we be waiting until we are attacked by terrorists again since we don’t actually have any proof of who is going to try and attack us?

I could probably think of a dozen other situations where this mindset would be extremely detrimental but I'm sure you realize this now.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I see nothing but a full fledged scam perpetrated by get-rich-quick power hungry con-artists, from scientists down to politicians. I say that because they try to force all this stuff on us with simply a "trust me" argument. That's indicative of a con-artist. All they need are jackboots and their attire would be complete. Prolly on layaway for the moment...

This type of shit doesn't belong anywhere in a debate. It's all heresay.

[President]

The problem is they went about this at the wrong angle, well, semi wrong angle. The dems tried to use the republican scare tactic in that "the earth is going to heat up and it going to cause catastrophe." Which, can be useful considering how dumb the majority of the country it, but it's just too far fetched to believe. I don't know anyone, republican or democrat (with a brain) who believes we should continue pumping toxic chemicals into the air and water, which is what this is really about. Maybe the better line would have been "Company X is killing you by putting Y in your drinking water, stop pollution!" instead of "Lots of companies with carbon emissions may be heating up the earth."

[Humerox]

The thing that kills me is there is much that can be done to reduce carbon emissions...which isn't a bad idea no matter which side of the fence you're on.

You don't hear a lot about that. Hmmm.

Biosequestration for example.

Can Cattle Save Us From Global Warming?

Just food for thought.

Damn. Now I want a hamburger.

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The thing that kills me is there is much that can be done to reduce carbon emissions...which isn't a bad idea no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Can Cattle Save Us From Global Warming?

Interesting read... but simply not raising the cattle would still be much better for the environment than raising just as much cattle as before but on grass.

It seems like a half-hearted idea.

Besides, with the amount of animals being raised for food in this country alone, I seriously doubt it's even realistically feasible to raise them all on grass at this point.

So, while I agree that raising all cattle on grass instead of on feedlots would help, simply not eating the burger would help MUCH more. Of course I realize that as this point in human history that expectation is (sadly) quite unrealistic.

I do my part though! I haven't eaten any meat in over 10 years and I use mass-transit every day.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...I use mass-transit every day.

That's something else.

Why has no program been put in place to have a transit system emulating say, Canada's...in every major metropolitan area in the US?

When I lived in Canada, I lived in a little burg called Milton...probably 50 miles or so from Toronto. I could hop on the Go-Train any time day or night...skip over to Toronto, and catch a bus anywhere I needed to go.

Not only would it provide a way to reduce carbon emissions, it would provide a way for many poorer people to get to work and off welfare. If they wanted to that is, and I'm not getting into that argument.

The US emits nearly half of the world's automotive carbon dioxide.

Government talks a good game, but that's it.

Like I said...LOTS of stuff could be being done...but nobody's really doing much of anything except arguing, lol.