Satellite photos show uncomfortable truth

[Crick]

When I said "I'm sure it already has", I was speaking of events like Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, people dying of thirst, starvation, flooding, etc, etc, etc.

 

[RKMBrown]

When I said "I'm sure it already has", I was speaking of events like Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, people dying of thirst, starvation, flooding, etc, etc, etc.

So you actually believe increased levels of CO2 caused hurricane Katrinia. You actually believe that increased levels of CO2, the atmospheric component that plants use during photosynthesis, causes starvation. wow... just wow. Arguing with folks like you is like trying to argue with a 3 year old spoiled brat.

 

[Crick]

When I said "I'm sure it already has", I was speaking of events like Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, people dying of thirst, starvation, flooding, etc, etc, etc.

So you actually believe increased levels of CO2 caused hurricane Katrinia.

I don't believe we've ever had a hurricane Katrinia, but if you mean't Katrina, then, no, I don't believe it was caused by increased levels of CO2. I believe increased levels of CO2 increased the Earth's temperature and in some part were responsible for the very high SST of the Gulf as Katrina was coming across. I believe the effects of excess CO2 made Katrina more likely and I believe that the effects of excess CO2 made Katrina more powerful. The same is true for everything else I noted. It will be a great long while before the blame for any natural event can be lain solely at the foot of CO2. That does NOT mean that CO2 is blameless.

You actually believe that increased levels of CO2, the atmospheric component that plants use during photosynthesis, causes starvation.

Global warming has already been responsible for a number of significant seasonal weather changes around the globe: the droughts in the southwestern US for instance. You may not be familiar with the rest of the world, but large numbers of people do not have access to grocery stores or have refrigerator freezers. They often have only what they can grow and what they and catch to eat. Weather changes that lead to crop failures can and do cause starvation. Malnutrition leads to increased risk from diseases and injuries and reduces the productivity required to feed oneself when one's food is the product of one's labors.

wow... just wow. Arguing with folks like you is like trying to argue with a 3 year old spoiled brat.

Do you really think so? Let's see how that works out for you.

 

[RKMBrown]

When I said "I'm sure it already has", I was speaking of events like Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan, people dying of thirst, starvation, flooding, etc, etc, etc.

So you actually believe increased levels of CO2 caused hurricane Katrinia.

I don't believe we've ever had a hurricane Katrinia, but if you mean't Katrina, then, no, I don't believe it was caused by increased levels of CO2. I believe increased levels of CO2 increased the Earth's temperature and in some part were responsible for the very high SST of the Gulf as Katrina was coming across. I believe the effects of excess CO2 made Katrina more likely and I believe that the effects of excess CO2 made Katrina more powerful. The same is true for everything else I noted. It will be a great long while before the blame for any natural event can be lain solely at the foot of CO2. That does NOT mean that CO2 is blameless.

You actually believe that increased levels of CO2, the atmospheric component that plants use during photosynthesis, causes starvation.

Global warming has already been responsible for a number of significant seasonal weather changes around the globe: the droughts in the southwestern US for instance. You may not be familiar with the rest of the world, but large numbers of people do not have access to grocery stores or have refrigerator freezers. They often have only what they can grow and what they and catch to eat. Weather changes that lead to crop failures can and do cause starvation. Malnutrition leads to increased risk from diseases and injuries and reduces the productivity required to feed oneself when one's food is the product of one's labors.

wow... just wow. Arguing with folks like you is like trying to argue with a 3 year old spoiled brat.

Do you really think so? Let's see how that works out for you.

Are you or are you not aware that hurricanes are caused by moisture. Which is it, your global warming is causing additional moisture which is causing hurricanes or it's causing droughts which is starving people out? Do you or do you not know that colder climate results in more droughts, not less. This is a yes or no question.

 

[Crick]

Are you or are you not aware that hurricanes are caused by moisture. Which is it, your global warming is causing additional moisture which is causing hurricanes or it's causing droughts which is starving people out? Do you or do you not know that colder climate results in more droughts, not less. This is a yes or no question.

It is? Then let me offer you a helpful bit of knowledge:

From Wikipedia:

A false dilemma (also called black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either-or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.

The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. Phrasing that implies two options (dilemma, dichotomy, black-and-white) may be replaced with other number-based nouns, such as a "false trilemma" if something is reduced to only three options, instead of two.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). This fallacy also can arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.

Some philosophers and scholars believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction."[1] An exception is analytic philosopher John Searle, who called it an incorrect assumption that produces false dichotomies.[2] Searle insists that "it is a condition of the adequacy of a precise theory of an indeterminate phenomenon that it should precisely characterize that phenomenon as indeterminate; and a distinction is no less a distinction for allowing for a family of related, marginal, diverging cases."[2] Similarly, when two options are presented, they often are, although not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities; this may lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive of each other, even though they need not be.[citation needed] Furthermore, the options in false dichotomies typically are presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy may be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
***************************************************************************************
Increased CO2 is causing the accumulation of more and more solar energy from the sun which is raising the temperature of the planet's surfaces, its oceans and its atmosphere. All weather is driven by solar energy.

Are you familiar with a Carnot heat engine?

Increasing temperatures will cause changes to the Earth's weather patterns. Our supply of food, be it crops, animals feeding on those crops or fish in the ocean, will be affected by changes in the Earth's weather patterns.

 

[Kosh]

What warming phase?

Typical AGW cult member..

Thinks the planet does not warm unless it is caused by humans..

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you or are you not aware that hurricanes are caused by moisture. Which is it, your global warming is causing additional moisture which is causing hurricanes or it's causing droughts which is starving people out? Do you or do you not know that colder climate results in more droughts, not less. This is a yes or no question.

It is? Then let me offer you a helpful bit of knowledge:

From Wikipedia:

A false dilemma (also called black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either-or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.

The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. Phrasing that implies two options (dilemma, dichotomy, black-and-white) may be replaced with other number-based nouns, such as a "false trilemma" if something is reduced to only three options, instead of two.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). This fallacy also can arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.

Some philosophers and scholars believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction."[1] An exception is analytic philosopher John Searle, who called it an incorrect assumption that produces false dichotomies.[2] Searle insists that "it is a condition of the adequacy of a precise theory of an indeterminate phenomenon that it should precisely characterize that phenomenon as indeterminate; and a distinction is no less a distinction for allowing for a family of related, marginal, diverging cases."[2] Similarly, when two options are presented, they often are, although not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities; this may lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive of each other, even though they need not be.[citation needed] Furthermore, the options in false dichotomies typically are presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy may be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
***************************************************************************************
Increased CO2 is causing the accumulation of more and more solar energy from the sun which is raising the temperature of the planet's surfaces, its oceans and its atmosphere. All weather is driven by solar energy.

Are you familiar with a Carnot heat engine?

Increasing temperatures will cause changes to the Earth's weather patterns. Our supply of food, be it crops, animals feeding on those crops or fish in the ocean, will be affected by changes in the Earth's weather patterns.

Yes, changes to temperatures affect weather patterns, duh! You don't seem to be retarded, why are you acting like you are? Why are you insisting that changes are bad? What makes you think you and your kind can affect the weather in any way shape or form?

If you had to pick a change would you vote for a return to an ice age or warming and why.

 

[Crick]

Yes, changes to temperatures affect weather patterns, duh!

Yes and those changes can go in all manner of directions. Increases in polar temperatures can cause Rossby waves which have brought polar air masses down to the central and eastern US making lots of folks think it's evidence that no warming is taking place. The droughts in the SW US have made folks thinks its been proven that increased temperatures will cause increased evaporation. Dogs and cats playing together...

You don't seem to be retarded

Oh, thank GOD! I was really worried about that. Really.

why are you acting like you are?

That'd be a long story. Ah-boot 60 years I'd a-guess.

Why are you insisting that changes are bad?

Hmmm.... probably something about people suffering when changes make it more and more difficult for them to find shelter, food and water.

What makes you think you and your kind can affect the weather in any way shape or form?

We already have. They call it AGW. I bet you've seen the pictures:

If you had to pick a change would you vote for a return to an ice age or warming and why.

I don't have a preference. And apparently you didn't catch the theme behind that false dilemma article.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, changes to temperatures affect weather patterns, duh!

Yes and those changes can go in all manner of directions. Increases in polar temperatures can cause Rossby waves which have brought polar air masses down to the central and eastern US making lots of folks think it's evidence that no warming is taking place. The droughts in the SW US have made folks thinks its been proven that increased temperatures will cause increased evaporation. Dogs and cats playing together...

You don't seem to be retarded

Oh, thank GOD! I was really worried about that. Really.

why are you acting like you are?

That'd be a long story. Ah-boot 60 years I'd a-guess.

Why are you insisting that changes are bad?

Hmmm.... probably something about people suffering when changes make it more and more difficult for them to find shelter, food and water.

What makes you think you and your kind can affect the weather in any way shape or form?

We already have. They call it AGW. I bet you've seen the pictures:

If you had to pick a change would you vote for a return to an ice age or warming and why.

I don't have a preference. And apparently you didn't catch the theme behind that false dilemma article.

You don't seem to understand yet. Thinking you can or are affecting a change in temperature by exhaling CO2 is beyond ludicrous. But even if it is was possible, that you can't choose between what would be better for us, that of getting warmer or colder, really just points to the fact that you are mentally handicapped with your aversion to change. Fear is the mind killer. You have succumbed to believing that CO2, that which you and all other animals exhale on this planet, is a danger to the animals on this planet.

In short you are scared to death of your own shadow, lest it overcomes you in retaliation for ... get this breathing.

 

[Crick]

You don't seem to understand yet.

I think I've understood everything you've said so far. If that hasn't been quite what you wanted to say, well...

Thinking you can or are affecting a change in temperature by exhaling CO2 is beyond ludicrous.

Perhaps that explains why I've never said any such thing.

But even if it is was possible, that you can't choose between what would be better for us, that of getting warmer or colder, really just points to the fact that you are mentally handicapped with your aversion to change.

Hmmm, no. What it points to is that you still don't seem to understand the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, or as I always called it, the false dichotomy. You ask me whether I want to suffer hot or suffer cold. I don't want either, The temperature of the world is a continuous spectrum. There are an infinite number of values it could take on. I would be satisfied with whatever the equilibrium temperature for a CO2 level of 280 ppm. I could be satisfied with warming or cooling if only it took place at the pace with which it has warmed or cooled in the Earth's past. The Earth's temperatures and the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere have risen and fallen throughout the Earth's history. But on those occasions - even those occasions that led to mass extinction events - the CO2 levels and the temperatures changed at an absolutely glacial pace when compared to the rate of change today. It's not the absolute temperatures that are going to hurt us. It's the rapid pace of change.

Fear is the mind killer.

Fear is A mind killer. So is ignorance. So are the prejudice and bias that ignorance breeds.

You have succumbed to believing that CO2, that which you and all other animals exhale on this planet, is a danger to the animals on this planet.

I haven't succumbed to anything. I've been convinced by overwhelming evidence, by the application of logic, by my knowledge of physics and chemistry. I've been swayed by the overwhelming majority of experts: people who know the physics and the chemistry and the logic better than me or anyone else on this board - that anthropogenic global warming is valid and correctly describes the working of the Earth's climate.

In short you are scared to death of your own shadow, lest it overcomes you in retaliation for ... get this breathing.

Sorry, no. And if you find it necessary to think of your debating opponents, or simply all those with whom you disagree, to be quivering in rank fear while you stand there brave and tall... well, you must not have much faith in your arguments.

Why don't you come back when you've grown a pair.

 

[RKMBrown]

You don't seem to understand yet.

I think I've understood everything you've said so far. If that hasn't been quite what you wanted to say, well...

Thinking you can or are affecting a change in temperature by exhaling CO2 is beyond ludicrous.

Perhaps that explains why I've never said any such thing.

But even if it is was possible, that you can't choose between what would be better for us, that of getting warmer or colder, really just points to the fact that you are mentally handicapped with your aversion to change.

Hmmm, no. What it points to is that you still don't seem to understand the logical fallacy of the false dilemma, or as I always called it, the false dichotomy. You ask me whether I want to suffer hot or suffer cold. I don't want either, The temperature of the world is a continuous spectrum. There are an infinite number of values it could take on. I would be satisfied with whatever the equilibrium temperature for a CO2 level of 280 ppm. I could be satisfied with warming or cooling if only it took place at the pace with which it has warmed or cooled in the Earth's past. The Earth's temperatures and the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere have risen and fallen throughout the Earth's history. But on those occasions - even those occasions that led to mass extinction events - the CO2 levels and the temperatures changed at an absolutely glacial pace when compared to the rate of change today. It's not the absolute temperatures that are going to hurt us. It's the rapid pace of change.

Fear is the mind killer.

Fear is A mind killer. So is ignorance. So are the prejudice and bias that ignorance breeds.

You have succumbed to believing that CO2, that which you and all other animals exhale on this planet, is a danger to the animals on this planet.

I haven't succumbed to anything. I've been convinced by overwhelming evidence, by the application of logic, by my knowledge of physics and chemistry. I've been swayed by the overwhelming majority of experts: people who know the physics and the chemistry and the logic better than me or anyone else on this board - that anthropogenic global warming is valid and correctly describes the working of the Earth's climate.

In short you are scared to death of your own shadow, lest it overcomes you in retaliation for ... get this breathing.

Sorry, no. And if you find it necessary to think of your debating opponents, or simply all those with whom you disagree, to be quivering in rank fear while you stand there brave and tall... well, you must not have much faith in your arguments.

Why don't you come back when you've grown a pair.

Make up your mind at the top of this post you deny you are saying you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, then at the end you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2. Which is it? This another one of your so called false dichotomies?

This is not hard, either you are causing global climate change by exhaling CO2 or you are not causing global climate change by exhaling CO2. Make up your mind.

 

[flacaltenn]

What a muddle-brained dupe. SOS..

1) Where is the Ocean munching heat consumption in the IPCC AR "forcings" chart? Anything that eats that much heat is a NEGATIVE forcing.. And WHY do they insist on LYING about the solar forcing number? Climate Science is SO retarded..

2) Where would you expect to see CO2 levels during a series of Ice Ages when all that gas is sequestered in mile deep Ice?

3) It's been explained to you MANY times that the author of one of the historical hockey stick graphs ACKNOWLEDGES that the methodology used to create that POS does not have NEAR enough the resolution to pick up a 80 yr temperature spike like we've seen. And MASSIVE LOCAL evidence points to a Med Warm Period equivalent to or EXCEEDING our current spike in maybe a 100 or 200 yr period.

4) Don't look now -- but those modeled projections of future temperatures are already WAY off. Time for a NEW CHART !!

But keep on posting the same crap.. And at all costs -- avoid any thinking or analysis...

 

[Two Thumbs]

some of those were pretty cool

like the Vegas one and the Dubia coast

 

[Crick]

Make up your mind at the top of this post you deny you are saying you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, then at the end you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2. Which is it? This another one of your so called false dichotomies?

This is not hard, either you are causing global climate change by exhaling CO2 or you are not causing global climate change by exhaling CO2. Make up your mind.

It really seems as if you have absolutely no shafts in your quiver save the one labeled "The False Dilemma"

Again, come back when you have a real argument, cause this don't qualify.

 

[RKMBrown]

Make up your mind at the top of this post you deny you are saying you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, then at the end you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2. Which is it? This another one of your so called false dichotomies?

This is not hard, either you are causing global climate change by exhaling CO2 or you are not causing global climate change by exhaling CO2. Make up your mind.

It really seems as if you have absolutely no shafts in your quiver save the one labeled "The False Dilemma"

Again, come back when you have a real argument, cause this don't qualify.

Which are you claiming was your lie? Your statement where you deny you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, or the one where you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2. Which is the lie?

 

[Crick]

No offense, really, but you're a fucking idiot.

 

[RKMBrown]

No offense, really, but you're a fucking idiot.

Which are you claiming was your lie? Your statement where you deny you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2, or the one where you say you have been swayed by the overwhelming majority of so called experts that say you are affecting temperature by exhaling CO2. Which is the lie?

 

[Crick]

Are you really this stupid or are you posing in an attempt to gain sympathy?

Speaking of lies: why don't you find where I stated that anthropogenic global warming is the result of human respiration?

Speaking of lies: why don't you find where the experts I quote stated that anthropogenic global warming is the result of human respiration?

Speaking of lies: why don't you review the Wikipedia article I showed you on the logical FALLACY known as the FALSE DILEMMA?
False dilemma - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you really this stupid or are you posing in an attempt to gain sympathy?

Speaking of lies: why don't you find where I stated that anthropogenic global warming is the result of human respiration?

Speaking of lies: why don't you find where the experts I quote stated that anthropogenic global warming is the result of human respiration?

Speaking of lies: why don't you review the Wikipedia article I showed you on the logical FALLACY known as the FALSE DILEMMA?
False dilemma - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you actually trying to say that human respiration does not generate CO2? I didn't think anyone could be that stupid.

Here:

 

[Crick]

That doesn't correct for your lies. Show us where I made the statements you've claimed I made. Show us where the experts I use have made the statements you've claimed they made. Show us where it says the False Dilemma is not a logical fallacy.