The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[Wyld Kard]

 

[itfitzme]

They don't need to, it's in the air.

 

[itfitzme]

Do you believe what Al Gore preaches about Global Warming?

Do you believe that Global Warming is a serious threat to the planet?

If YOU answered "YES" to any one of the questions, than YOU are a gullible sheep.



If you answered "YES" to both questions than YOU are a gullible sheep.

If you didn't answer "yes" to both questions, you accept politics over science. Ignorance over knowledge.

I accept truth over the bullshit lies of global warming / climate change. *My decision has nothing to do with politics.

When you mention science, I know that you are reffering to the so-called fabricated "science" that is behind Global Warming /Climate Change. *That science is fraudulent.*

If anyone is ignorant, it's gullible people like you, little sheep. *People who believe in Global Warming / Climate without questioning it, is gullible. *People who actually believes and accepts without question that Global Warming / Climate Change is caused by humans, is gullible. *People who believed and accept every word that Al Gore (your god), spoke, is gullible. *

People like you who bought into the lies of global warming / climate change act like they are "high and mighty", "holier than thou", "better than everyone else", because they believe they "are doing something to help the planet". *Gimme a break. *I just think people like that is snobbish and ignorant.

If you consider yourself knowledgeable on the subject of global warming / climate change, than I consider that laughable.

Well, that puts it all to rest. *Now everyone can go home.

 

[westwall]

What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.

They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.

Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.

Physical data does NOT go in. Ideas go in. Fiction comes out. That's why the models have now been completely wrong for the last 15 years and why they were on;y correct so long as the correlation was continuing. Good scientists can tell you (and it is in fact a scientific maxim) that "correlation does not equal causation" but the warmists have built their entire "science" around correlation.

That's why it's collapsing so fast....violate a maxim to that extent and when the correlation no longer works you're screwed because you have no real science to fall back on.

 

[flacaltenn]

Amatuer Hour, The Cuckoo's Nest or The Gong Show ---- you decide...

 

[PMZ]

Do you believe what Al Gore preaches about Global Warming?

Do you believe that Global Warming is a serious threat to the planet?

If YOU answered "YES" to any one of the questions, than YOU are a gullible sheep.



If you answered "YES" to both questions than YOU are a gullible sheep.

If you didn't answer "yes" to both questions, you accept politics over science. Ignorance over knowledge.

I accept truth over the bullshit lies of global warming / climate change. My decision has nothing to do with politics.

When you mention science, I know that you are reffering to the so-called fabricated "science" that is behind Global Warming /Climate Change. That science is fraudulent.

If anyone is ignorant, it's gullible people like you, little sheep. People who believe in Global Warming / Climate Change without questioning it, is gullible. People who actually believes and accepts without question that Global Warming / Climate Change is caused by humans, is gullible. People who believed and accept every word that Al Gore (your god), spoke, is gullible.

People like you who bought into the lies of global warming / climate change act like they are "high and mighty", "holier than thou", "better than everyone else", because they believe they "are doing something to help the planet". Gimme a break. I just think people like that is snobbish and ignorant.

If you consider yourself knowledgeable on the subject of global warming / climate change, than I consider that laughable.

I will have to admit, I didn't consider any of the evidence presented here.

Which is all of the evidence available leading to the conclusion that AGW doesn't exist.

People are saying loud and clear that they would prefer it not to exist. That's something that we can all agree on.

It seems though that the universe hears us and considers it all irrelevant whining. Reality doesn't care at all what we want.

We thought that fossil fuels were the gift of cheap inconsequential energy from the gods. It turns out that we were wrong. Whoops!

It's a good thing that we have science to help us out of the mess that we've made.

 

[PMZ]

What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.

They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.

Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.

Physical data does NOT go in. Ideas go in. Fiction comes out. That's why the models have now been completely wrong for the last 15 years and why they were on;y correct so long as the correlation was continuing. Good scientists can tell you (and it is in fact a scientific maxim) that "correlation does not equal causation" but the warmists have built their entire "science" around correlation.

That's why it's collapsing so fast....violate a maxim to that extent and when the correlation no longer works you're screwed because you have no real science to fall back on.

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it


"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing.
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."


Edited for fair Use and link providedWhy is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[mamooth]

If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..

Only a profoundly irrational person would say something that dumb, given that we measure the huge heat imbalance going into the earth.

I mean, you'd have to be borderline retarded to declare air is the only thing that gets warm. Ocean heating? Denialists simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Okay, denialists aren't necessarily stupid. "Brainwashed" and "dishonest" are also possibilities.

 

[Wyld Kard]

If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..

Only a profoundly irrational person would say something that dumb, given that we measure the huge heat imbalance going into the earth.

I mean, you'd have to be borderline retarded to declare air is the only thing that gets warm. Ocean heating? Denialists simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Okay, denialists aren't necessarily stupid. "Brainwashed" and "dishonest" are also possibilities.

"Brainwashed" and "dishonest", that is exactly how I view the "gullible sheep" who bought into the lies of global warming. I guess "misguided" and "ignorant" are two more words to describe as well.

 

[PMZ]

If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..

Only a profoundly irrational person would say something that dumb, given that we measure the huge heat imbalance going into the earth.

I mean, you'd have to be borderline retarded to declare air is the only thing that gets warm. Ocean heating? Denialists simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Okay, denialists aren't necessarily stupid. "Brainwashed" and "dishonest" are also possibilities.

Brainwashed and dishonest, that is exactly how I view the "gullible sheep" who bought into the lies of global warming.

Evidence is such a cruel master. It crushes fiction. It separates us from what we want to be true no matter how hard we want. It shows us not to be entitled. Ordinary. Unpriviliedged. It chains us to reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..

Only a profoundly irrational person would say something that dumb, given that we measure the huge heat imbalance going into the earth.

I mean, you'd have to be borderline retarded to declare air is the only thing that gets warm. Ocean heating? Denialists simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Okay, denialists aren't necessarily stupid. "Brainwashed" and "dishonest" are also possibilities.

You're making up opposition here. Why ISN'T the La Nina (or PDO or AMO) showing up in the models to the extent that (as you contend) they can cancel the GHGas warming? What I said is correct. A RATIONAL person would expect something that significant and fundamental to be PART of the modeling.. READ MY COMMENT AGAIN, ditch the warfare, and tell me HOW you can claim that this lull in warming is due to well-known natural events that "were not predicted"?

You OK there? Got a hairball?? You're combative and not making sense.

 

[flacaltenn]

If a la Nina (or PDO or AMO or TSI) can overwhelm and HALT the massive warming trend of runaway GHgases, then perhaps a rational person would say that the NATURAL contributions to the climate are SEVERELY underrated in the models..

Only a profoundly irrational person would say something that dumb, given that we measure the huge heat imbalance going into the earth.

I mean, you'd have to be borderline retarded to declare air is the only thing that gets warm. Ocean heating? Denialists simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Okay, denialists aren't necessarily stupid. "Brainwashed" and "dishonest" are also possibilities.

"Brainwashed" and "dishonest", that is exactly how I view the "gullible sheep" who bought into the lies of global warming. I guess "misguided" and "ignorant" are two more words to describe as well.

I think what you sadly just witnessed is more on the order of "slyly evasive" or "odiferously defensive".....

 

[Wyld Kard]

Time to put this whole controversy to rest......

WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING REALLY? The sun warming the Earth.

WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY? The changing of the seasons.

It's just that simple.....

 

[westwall]

What's funny is these clowns look at model outputs and think they qualify as data. It says a great deal about their level of education (or lack thereof) that they will look at computer models and not realize that they are fictional. They may or may not have any basis in reality (we have seen that climate models actually DON'T have a basis in reality) but that interests them not at all.

They may as well read the Harry Potter books to tell them what the climate is....they are every bit as good at predicting the future climate as the computer models are.

Here's something to ponder. Airplanes start existence as a computer model, and when built they fly. The models predict it and it happens. Of course, Harry Potter can fly too. You've got us there.

Here's something to ponder, aircraft start as designs on a sheet of paper or in a computer. Then they use a computer modeling system that is exceptionally complex and specific (called computational fluid dynamics) to model how those aircraft designs will work in the real world....then a actual physical model is created and TESTED IN A REAL WIND TUNNEL to compare vs the computer model and then after YEARS of testing they build a real aircraft and THAT IS TESTED again, and again, and again before they even take it into the air.

Do you see how much real world testing they do to create that aircraft....something you clowns can't or won't do and your models are so simplistic (as opposed to the CFD models) that they HAVE NEVER accurately modeled ANYTHING.

That's the problem with simplistic models run by simpletons....they don't do anything accurately.

That's why you have lost.

 

[westwall]

Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.

Physical data does NOT go in. Ideas go in. Fiction comes out. That's why the models have now been completely wrong for the last 15 years and why they were on;y correct so long as the correlation was continuing. Good scientists can tell you (and it is in fact a scientific maxim) that "correlation does not equal causation" but the warmists have built their entire "science" around correlation.

That's why it's collapsing so fast....violate a maxim to that extent and when the correlation no longer works you're screwed because you have no real science to fall back on.

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it


"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. NASA/ Roger Ressmeyer/ Corbis
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."

"There are periods when the ocean heats up more quickly than the surface, and other periods when the surface heats up more quickly than the oceans. Right now we're in a period of fast ocean warming and overall, global warming is continuing at a very fast pace."

"The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated."

"This was the conclusion of a scientific paper I co-authored last year, in which our team found more overall global warming (of the oceans, air, land, and ice combined) over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years. Just recently, another paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the warming of the oceans since the turn of the century has been the most sustained in the past 50 years. They also found that, consistent with my team's research, about 30% of overall global warming has gone into the deep oceans below 700 meters due to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. This accelerated deep ocean warming is also unprecedented in the past 50 years."

"We often hear from the media that the (surface air) warming has slowed or paused over the past 15 years. This isn't a puzzle; climate scientists are well aware of several contributing factors, as a recent Reuters article – "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown"*– eventually discussed. The accelerated warming of the oceans is likely the main contributor."

"During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming. One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago."

"When people say 'no warming in 15 years', they're cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year. It's like arguing that your car must have broken down because it hasn't moved in the 15 seconds while you've been stopped at a red light. The argument selects a short timeframe that's not representative of the whole."

"Since 2000, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events, which has acted to temporarily bury more global warming in the oceans. A new study published in Nature Climate Change found that by taking into account the short-term changes caused by factors like El Niño and La Niña cycles, they could accurately forecast the slowed warming at the surface several years in advance. The paper concluded,"

"Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown."

"Reuters did not talk to the authors of this study, or ask any other climate scientists about this surface warming slowdown that they're supposed to be puzzled about. Actually that's not quite true. Just a week earlier, Reuters interviewed the lead author of that paper in an article with the headline "Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change". The article noted,"


"Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief."

"Reuters didn't connect the dots between these two articles, telling us one week that oceans help explain the surface warming slowdown, and the next week claiming the slowdown is puzzling climate scientists. However, these 'slowdowns' happen on a regular basis. You can find one every 5 to 10 years in the surface temperature data, as illustrated in a graphic I created nicknamed 'The Escalator'."


"Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12.
During periods with more La Niñas, surface temperatures temporarily flatten out. But global warming does not. As long as humans continue to increase the greenhouse effect by burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, the planet will continue to warm, as is clear from the acceleration of global warming since 2000."

Good question. How does one twist themselves into such severe knots to explain that which is not happening. You guys remind me of PRAVDA.

"THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend."

See, even THE head guy says you're full of crap....


Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[itfitzme]

Time to put this whole controversy to rest......

WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING REALLY? The sun warming the Earth.

WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY? The changing of the seasons.

It's just that simple.....

Wow. So basically, things like "mean" are beyond your scope of knowledge.

Cartoons work for you, though.

And you manage to find the voting location unaided?

 

[Oddball]

Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.

The model data is only as perfect and accurate as the imperfect people inputting the data.....Computer models also cannot change themselves by adding relevant data that may have been left out.

That's why computer models are supervised by scientists. Just like the machines at 7/11 that predict how much change you'll receive.

That's about the most harebrained comparison I've heard in quite some time.

 

[itfitzme]

The model data is only as perfect and accurate as the imperfect people inputting the data.....Computer models also cannot change themselves by adding relevant data that may have been left out.

That's why computer models are supervised by scientists. Just like the machines at 7/11 that predict how much change you'll receive.

That's about the most harebrained comparison I've heard in quite some time.

It is called an a-nal-o-gy.

The scientist is like the cashier.
The climate data is like the money.
The computer is like the cash register.
The temperature output is like the change.

See how that works? *The elements of one map to the other.

 

[gslack]

Who said they were physical data? Physical data goes in, model data comes out.

Physical data does NOT go in. Ideas go in. Fiction comes out. That's why the models have now been completely wrong for the last 15 years and why they were on;y correct so long as the correlation was continuing. Good scientists can tell you (and it is in fact a scientific maxim) that "correlation does not equal causation" but the warmists have built their entire "science" around correlation.

That's why it's collapsing so fast....violate a maxim to that extent and when the correlation no longer works you're screwed because you have no real science to fall back on.

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it


"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing. NASA/ Roger Ressmeyer/ Corbis
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."

"There are periods when the ocean heats up more quickly than the surface, and other periods when the surface heats up more quickly than the oceans. Right now we're in a period of fast ocean warming and overall, global warming is continuing at a very fast pace."

"The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated."

"This was the conclusion of a scientific paper I co-authored last year, in which our team found more overall global warming (of the oceans, air, land, and ice combined) over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years. Just recently, another paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the warming of the oceans since the turn of the century has been the most sustained in the past 50 years. They also found that, consistent with my team's research, about 30% of overall global warming has gone into the deep oceans below 700 meters due to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. This accelerated deep ocean warming is also unprecedented in the past 50 years."

"We often hear from the media that the (surface air) warming has slowed or paused over the past 15 years. This isn't a puzzle; climate scientists are well aware of several contributing factors, as a recent Reuters article – "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown"*– eventually discussed. The accelerated warming of the oceans is likely the main contributor."

"During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming. One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago."

"When people say 'no warming in 15 years', they're cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year. It's like arguing that your car must have broken down because it hasn't moved in the 15 seconds while you've been stopped at a red light. The argument selects a short timeframe that's not representative of the whole."

"Since 2000, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events, which has acted to temporarily bury more global warming in the oceans. A new study published in Nature Climate Change found that by taking into account the short-term changes caused by factors like El Niño and La Niña cycles, they could accurately forecast the slowed warming at the surface several years in advance. The paper concluded,"

"Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown."

"Reuters did not talk to the authors of this study, or ask any other climate scientists about this surface warming slowdown that they're supposed to be puzzled about. Actually that's not quite true. Just a week earlier, Reuters interviewed the lead author of that paper in an article with the headline "Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change". The article noted,"


"Experts in France and Spain said on Sunday that the oceans took up more warmth from the air around 2000. That would help explain the slowdown in surface warming but would also suggest that the pause may be only temporary and brief."

"Reuters didn't connect the dots between these two articles, telling us one week that oceans help explain the surface warming slowdown, and the next week claiming the slowdown is puzzling climate scientists. However, these 'slowdowns' happen on a regular basis. You can find one every 5 to 10 years in the surface temperature data, as illustrated in a graphic I created nicknamed 'The Escalator'."


"Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12.
During periods with more La Niñas, surface temperatures temporarily flatten out. But global warming does not. As long as humans continue to increase the greenhouse effect by burning massive quantities of fossil fuels, the planet will continue to warm, as is clear from the acceleration of global warming since 2000."

Plagiarizing from the guardian must be your favorite past time you did in two threads now...

 

[gslack]

Where do plants get the carbon that they need to build themselves from?

LOL, Carbon is all over the place silly socko. In the soil, in rocks, you name it. It's the 4th most abundant element in the universe by mass. Behind Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen. It's an element socko, it's the base for all known life..

Now please spare us the fake scientist BS routine already.. It's getting really old now. As If this bit of stupidity on your part wasn't enough to prove your full of it... WOW man seriously WOW..

It's not even in the top ten on earth screwball. And it is extremely rare in its elemental form.

That's why the source required for plants to build themselves is CO2. Not rocks.

Someone asked the other day if there was any purpose to all of this posting. My purpose is to get you through fifth grade science. Tough job.

LOL, it doesn't have to be in elemental form dumbass, your claim of it coming from CO2 states this as well...It's in the soil and it's the basis of life, CO2 breaks down and when it does what happens to it? Jesus you're an idiot...Volcanoes spew out CO2, as well as other natural processes, when that CO2 eventually breaks down what happens to the carbon? It goes back intro the carbon cycle you nincompoop...

ROFL..