Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

[westwall]

So, you're the second person to cite that article then back away immediately when asked directly if you believe what the article states! I see a pattern of ppl posting things they don't believe just to post it, then run from how stupid it is

I have backed away from nothing. However, as a scientist, I look at real world observations and modify my conjectures and theories based on those observations.
Why is it the climatologists are the only "scientists" who don't?

I observe as well, like how observe you didnt answer the question that stemmed from the article that YOU, you posted twice. Three times for the other guy. I'll ask you again with back story: you posted an article saying that it hasn't gotten hotter in the past 10-15 years.

What is the correlation between no warming in the last 10-20 years to the theory of Global Warming?

Unless of course, you have another meeting you need to attend all of a sudden.

There is no correlation between the two. Hansen claims that particulate matter from coal fired power plants is responsible but has no observations to back up the assertion....only computer models.

Regardless, as any good scientist knows, "correlation does not equal causation".

 

[ClosedCaption]

Since there is no correlation don't post it.

It doesn't matter about models, scientist, evidence etc. At the end of it all no matter how much is posted. You. Don't. Bee-leeve. It.

This wait and see evidence of global catastrophe before I consider it important strategy is a weird way to look at it.

 

[westwall]

Since there is no correlation don't post it.

It doesn't matter about models, scientist, evidence etc. At the end of it all no matter how much is posted. You. Don't. Bee-leeve. It.

This wait and see evidence of global catastrophe before I consider it important strategy is a weird way to look at it.

It is? What sense is there in spending huge quantities of hard to get cash on something that evidence shows is actually good for the planet? The ONLY people who have claimed that global warming is bad (in direct conflict with every shred of data we have which shows warming to be a POSITIVE thing) are the AGW fraudsters who stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars off of the scam.

Earth just had a major meteorite impact in Russia with over 1000 people injured. Had it been a bigger rock and of NiFe content the destruction would have been catastrophic. THAT would have done in an instant what your precious global warming hasn't done....and could never do in point of fact.

If you wish to talk science then by all means do so. However, your religious dogma has no place in a scientific discussion.

 

[Mustang]

Yes, Canada would become another bread basket in a warmer world. I do find it amusing that you think warm areas can't produce food. Brazils average temp is 6 degrees above the US and they don't seem to have a problem growing anything.

On the north island of New Zealand they have farms growing trees that are native to Washington State and they grow as much in five years as they grow in 30 years in Washington. Why is that? Warmth and water bucko...warmth and water...

Your post is the kind of post that frustrates me in any debate because it is so rife with assumptions which simply aren't true. Consequently, your arguments aren't even remotely valid. You see, the upper latitudes of Canada are not some kind of wholesale rich yet frozen farmland just lying fallow and waiting for a thaw and a planting season in order to spring forth with an abundance of crops. Much of it is basically frozen marshland that really wouldn't be suitable at all to grow anything resembling a crop of what? Corn? Wheat? Of course, you've forgotten something else that's kind of important. The growing season (not to mention the individual days) is/are too damn short to grow the kinds of crops that have evolved to grow in the continental US during the long summer growing season months.

There is not one singe assumption in anything I posted. We KNOW that it is true based on archeological and paleontological data from the regions mentioned from periods when it was much warmer. Greenland had huge trees during the Holocene Thermal Maximum when temps were 8C warmer than today.

Do try and read a book sometime...you may actually learn something.

Huge trees? The last I heard, trees are not edible crops. At least they're not edible crops to humans. Trees also take decades to grow to maturity. And just because one (or more( type of tree will grow somewhere doesn't mean that wheat or corn will grow there since their nutritional needs and watering and sunlight requirements could be markedly different.

As for books, I've read four books on global warming, and I read over 70 books (both fiction and nonfiction) last year. How 'bout you? Maybe you should find a book that will help you overcome your propensity to make assumptions based on limited knowledge and understanding.

 

[Erand7899]

I see it's much easier to just say "things have happened and always will" is much easier than looking for differences in size and scope. I say things are diff, you say things are the same. Scientist say things are different and you say no they're not.

It's easy.

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Fact
Those wetlands helped reduce the speed, force and strength of storms. Fact
Katrina was more devastating because of that reduction in wetlands. Fact

Your response to ignore the differences in Katrinas size, strength and impact will be: there has always been storms!

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced because of people playing with the Mississipi River, and have nothing to do with any climate change.

Katrina missed New Orleans, but the tidal surge did not, and the levees failed. Absolutely nothing to do with any climate change.

 

[Mustang]

I see it's much easier to just say "things have happened and always will" is much easier than looking for differences in size and scope. I say things are diff, you say things are the same. Scientist say things are different and you say no they're not.

It's easy.

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Fact
Those wetlands helped reduce the speed, force and strength of storms. Fact
Katrina was more devastating because of that reduction in wetlands. Fact

Your response to ignore the differences in Katrinas size, strength and impact will be: there has always been storms!

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced because of people playing with the Mississipi River, and have nothing to do with any climate change.

Katrina missed New Orleans, but the tidal surge did not, and the levees failed. Absolutely nothing to do with any climate change.

Do you understand the concept that increased heat in the atmosphere translates into both more energy for storms of all types and more water vapor to fall as rain in more frequent and sudden downpours as opposed to the light and steady rainfalls of decades past?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Astrology is far more accurate than any AGW model

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Pop23]

I see it's much easier to just say "things have happened and always will" is much easier than looking for differences in size and scope. I say things are diff, you say things are the same. Scientist say things are different and you say no they're not.

It's easy.

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Fact
Those wetlands helped reduce the speed, force and strength of storms. Fact
Katrina was more devastating because of that reduction in wetlands. Fact

Your response to ignore the differences in Katrinas size, strength and impact will be: there has always been storms!

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced because of people playing with the Mississipi River, and have nothing to do with any climate change.

Katrina missed New Orleans, but the tidal surge did not, and the levees failed. Absolutely nothing to do with any climate change.

Do you understand the concept that increased heat in the atmosphere translates into both more energy for storms of all types and more water vapor to fall as rain in more frequent and sudden downpours as opposed to the light and steady rainfalls of decades past?

Understand it completely, just don't buy the theory that this is a unique time. You can take individual events and say....SEE, told ya so, then when things calm down, your side say SEE, told ya so....

Stronger than what? More frequent than when? And then when the storms are weaker, or the rainfalls less sudden, it's just all part of the process? Of course it is, but where you and I disagree is that we have any control of that process.

 

[westwall]

I see it's much easier to just say "things have happened and always will" is much easier than looking for differences in size and scope. I say things are diff, you say things are the same. Scientist say things are different and you say no they're not.

It's easy.

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Fact
Those wetlands helped reduce the speed, force and strength of storms. Fact
Katrina was more devastating because of that reduction in wetlands. Fact

Your response to ignore the differences in Katrinas size, strength and impact will be: there has always been storms!

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced because of people playing with the Mississipi River, and have nothing to do with any climate change.

Katrina missed New Orleans, but the tidal surge did not, and the levees failed. Absolutely nothing to do with any climate change.

Do you understand the concept that increased heat in the atmosphere translates into both more energy for storms of all types and more water vapor to fall as rain in more frequent and sudden downpours as opposed to the light and steady rainfalls of decades past?

What's the climate like at the equator? Where do you have major storms? What causes those major storms?

 

[westwall]

Astrology is far more accurate than any AGW model

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Hell that well known charlatan Sylvia Brown has a better track record than AGW "science" does.

That's pathetic...

 

[Redfish]

I see it's much easier to just say "things have happened and always will" is much easier than looking for differences in size and scope. I say things are diff, you say things are the same. Scientist say things are different and you say no they're not.

It's easy.

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Fact
Those wetlands helped reduce the speed, force and strength of storms. Fact
Katrina was more devastating because of that reduction in wetlands. Fact

Your response to ignore the differences in Katrinas size, strength and impact will be: there has always been storms!

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced because of people playing with the Mississipi River, and have nothing to do with any climate change.

Katrina missed New Orleans, but the tidal surge did not, and the levees failed. Absolutely nothing to do with any climate change.

Do you understand the concept that increased heat in the atmosphere translates into both more energy for storms of all types and more water vapor to fall as rain in more frequent and sudden downpours as opposed to the light and steady rainfalls of decades past?

do you understand that what you just said is total bullshit? the mississippi delta is losing land because the river has been channelled preventing the silt build up that made the delta in the first place.

you can say that is good or bad, but it has nothing to do with a hoax called AGW.

 

[Redfish]

OH DAMN!




> > Makes your realize how insignificant we are in the broader scope
> > of things...
> >
> >
> >
> > Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
> > Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better... If you've
> > read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
> >
> >
> > Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland,
> > since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED
> > EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2
> > emissions on our planet - all of you.
> >
> > Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are
> > trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant
> > requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and
> > all animal life.
> >
> > I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon
> > emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience
> > and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting
> > up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science
> > project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only
> > two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank
> > reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of
> > abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of
> > your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs... well, all of those
> > things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
> >
> > The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four
> > days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased
> > every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And
> > there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud
> > at any one time - EVERY DAY.
> >
> > I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should
> > mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in
> > 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the
> > entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes folks, Mt
> > Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
> >
> > Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment
> > and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the
> > well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep
> > happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate
> > change.
> >
> > And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but
> > the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western
> > USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce
> > carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every
> > year.
> >
> > Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping
> > carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change
> > scenario.
> >
> > Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming”
> > any more, but just“Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the
> > planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global
> > warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
> >
> > And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading
> > Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve
> > absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes
> > from erupting, that’s for sure.
> >
> > But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!
> >
> >
> >

 

[ClosedCaption]

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced because of people playing with the Mississipi River, and have nothing to do with any climate change.

Katrina missed New Orleans, but the tidal surge did not, and the levees failed. Absolutely nothing to do with any climate change.

Do you understand the concept that increased heat in the atmosphere translates into both more energy for storms of all types and more water vapor to fall as rain in more frequent and sudden downpours as opposed to the light and steady rainfalls of decades past?

do you understand that what you just said is total bullshit? the mississippi delta is losing land because the river has been channelled preventing the silt build up that made the delta in the first place.

you can say that is good or bad, but it has nothing to do with a hoax called AGW.

I think you mean to say: Human Impact but calling it that would be confirming that humans can have a negative impact on the planet...And conservatives don't believe that either

 

[boilermaker55]

Maybe the right wingers call it global warming but those that live in a real world call it Climate Change.
You would not understand the difference.

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? - Forbes

A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you can’t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I don’t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.


The above is what I have been saying all along. Yet the GW side keeps saying that climate change is undeniable. That the change has been drastic. They do point to the glaciers which apparently have receded as they have since the last ice age but other then that everything seems to be the same as it was when I was young.

Fear not folks, warmth brings life.

 

[Redfish]

Do you understand the concept that increased heat in the atmosphere translates into both more energy for storms of all types and more water vapor to fall as rain in more frequent and sudden downpours as opposed to the light and steady rainfalls of decades past?

do you understand that what you just said is total bullshit? the mississippi delta is losing land because the river has been channelled preventing the silt build up that made the delta in the first place.

you can say that is good or bad, but it has nothing to do with a hoax called AGW.

I think you mean to say: Human Impact but calling it that would be confirming that humans can have a negative impact on the planet...And conservatives don't believe that either

I never said that humans could have an impact on the planet, the Mississippi delta is a perfect example, so are the dykes and levees in the Netherlands.

But nothing man has ever done has changed the climate of the planet-----and it never will.

 

[Redfish]

Maybe the right wingers call it global warming but those that live in a real world call it Climate Change.
You would not understand the difference.

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? - Forbes

A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you can’t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I don’t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.


The above is what I have been saying all along. Yet the GW side keeps saying that climate change is undeniable. That the change has been drastic. They do point to the glaciers which apparently have receded as they have since the last ice age but other then that everything seems to be the same as it was when I was young.

Fear not folks, warmth brings life.

the climate of our planet has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. man has never had anything to do with it.

 

[boilermaker55]

How laughable is your statement?
It is hilarious to say that humans have no affect on an environment.
Nice try.

Maybe the right wingers call it global warming but those that live in a real world call it Climate Change.
You would not understand the difference.

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? - Forbes

A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you can’t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I don’t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.


The above is what I have been saying all along. Yet the GW side keeps saying that climate change is undeniable. That the change has been drastic. They do point to the glaciers which apparently have receded as they have since the last ice age but other then that everything seems to be the same as it was when I was young.

Fear not folks, warmth brings life.

the climate of our planet has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. man has never had anything to do with it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

do you understand that what you just said is total bullshit? the mississippi delta is losing land because the river has been channelled preventing the silt build up that made the delta in the first place.

you can say that is good or bad, but it has nothing to do with a hoax called AGW.

I think you mean to say: Human Impact but calling it that would be confirming that humans can have a negative impact on the planet...And conservatives don't believe that either

I never said that humans could have an impact on the planet, the Mississippi delta is a perfect example, so are the dykes and levees in the Netherlands.

But nothing man has ever done has changed the climate of the planet-----and it never will.

Actually you did with your Mississippi River example..

 

[aplcr0331]

Astrology is far more accurate than any AGW model

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Hell that well known charlatan Sylvia Brown has a better track record than AGW "science" does.

That's pathetic...

You'd think a group/movement that has been so wrong for over 30 years about almost all of their dire predictions would pull back a little bit, maybe be a little sheepish next time the "predict" something. Not this one, they double down with every passing day.

It's actually weird.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Maybe the right wingers call it global warming but those that live in a real world call it Climate Change.
You would not understand the difference.

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? - Forbes

A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you can’t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I don’t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.


The above is what I have been saying all along. Yet the GW side keeps saying that climate change is undeniable. That the change has been drastic. They do point to the glaciers which apparently have receded as they have since the last ice age but other then that everything seems to be the same as it was when I was young.

Fear not folks, warmth brings life.

the climate of our planet has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. man has never had anything to do with it.

According to what? Scientist from the Pull it from my ass University?