Global Warming hype!

steveox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
7,499
Location
Way Down South
Now wheres Al Gore and the Liberal media on the Blizzard yesterday and a few weeks ago record cold temps all over the south? And not one word from Katie Couric or from Brian Williams mention about global warming blamed for blizzard or record cold temps. But when July comes New York city gets over 105 degrees its all blamed on Global Warming.

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Environment/2010/12/28/Blizzard_menaces_US_east_coast_557126.html

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2010/12/15/another-day-of-record-breaking-cold/

Why dont we sue states who make us pay for evoinmental BS?

Like how can i Sue the State of Maryland for making me pay for VEIP?

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs...leEmissionsInspectionProgram/Pages/index.aspx
 
Werbung:
This behaviour is predicted by the hypothesis.

It reinforces, not weakens the hjypothesis

"...27 December 2010 :: J.E. Robertson

TheHotSpring.net :: Climate change means “global warming”, so how can severe winter storms and excessively cold breezes be evidence of a warming climate? The key is in the word “global”: the warming of the overall global average temperature need not manifest in all places at all times as warmer weather. Throughout the history of human civilization, the Earth’s climate has remained relatively stable, due to optimal global average temperatures; as global average temperatures slip outside that optimal range, the warmer air makes the interaction between climate systems more inconsistent and more severe.

So, while monsoons are failing across Africa and southern Asia, and major rivers are starting to run dry for part of the year, failing to reach the sea, in northern climate bands, storms are getting to be more severe and winter weather is hitting harder. This is because climate bands themselves are blurring, becoming less rigid, less reliable, and so in traditionally temperate climate zones, arctic and tropical air are coming together more often than before, both demonstrating and exacerbating the ongoing destabilization of major climate patterns.

On Sunday in New York City, freezing temperatures, dense snowfall and high winds all coincided with thunder, to the surprise of many, who had never observed this phenomenon before. As explained on the local news, such events can happen when the right combination of factors create a storm with some of the characteristics of summer storms. That means thunder can accompany snowfall if the cloud patterns are being fed by the right mix of freezing air and warmer southerly sea air.

The concern climate scientists have about global warming is not warm days as such, or mild winters, but rather the cumulative effect of warmer global average temperatures. That effect is widespread destabilization of vital climate patterns, and the resulting feedback loop, which would turn warmer high-altitude temperatures into melting glaciers, reduced precipitation and rising sea levels.

If the weather you’re seeing in your hometown is colder than usual, it is not evidence that the global average temperature is not warming. It is, however, consistent with a warming global climate to see weather that is more extreme in temperature or precipitation than has historically been the case in a given region.

One blizzard is not itself proof of global climate destabilization, but a mounting pattern over several years, where tornadoes converge on New York City (September 2010), more than 20% of Pakistan’s entire territory is inundated (summer 2010), hurricanes are more frequent, more numerous and more intense on average (2004-2010), and crops are under increased threat from frost in places like Brazil, Florida and India (1998-2010), are evidence of the destabilization of major climate patterns.

The persistent and mounting melt of Antarctic ice shelves, and their calving into the planet’s oceans, is further evidence of a persistent and mounting global increase in annual average temperatures. No system on Earth is entirely closed. Systems interact, which means chemical compositions of regional air and water flows, temperature adjustments, and frequency and precision of ecosystem services all interact and affect one another.

Such processes honor no political borders, recognize no economic zones and respect no observable boundaries. The warming of waters in the Gulf of Mexico means the Gulf Stream carries that warmer water to northwestern Europe, gradually warming the chill arctic waters, which then become less effective at rapidly cooling the Gulf Stream waters. This is important, because that rapid cooling generates the world’s most massive and powerful waterfall, as the cooled water plunges to the bottom, and flows around Europe and Africa into the Indian Ocean.

That Deep Ocean Current relies on the proper balance of warm and cool water at the precise point where falling water can push the right volume of water around the globe, at the right temperature to maintain key surface temperatures and major climate bands. To understand climate destabilization, it’s more instructive to think about the snowflake than the thermometer: cool temperatures don’t always bring snow, because weather is highly variable from moment to moment; but the fragile, tiny snowflake, of itself harmless, can become a paralyzing force across an entire region. Little incremental ticks of climate relevant data can mount to generate catastrophic change.

Today, we are digging out from under 25 inches of snow that fell in less than 24 hours. Digging out from under comprehensively destabilized global climate systems will not be so easy. The smart money tends to flow toward the more rational approach to problem solving. Having no plan but wait-and-see leads to transit collapse, states of emergency and regional collapse. The smart money for future investment wants to support more rational behavior, the kind that honors human need, human rights and the logic whereby democracy is highly capable of coordinated human brilliance.

http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2010/12/27/7048/climate-destabilization-cold-winter-weather/

Comrade Stalin
 
This behaviour is predicted by the hypothesis.

It reinforces, not weakens the hjypothesis

"...27 December 2010 :: J.E. Robertson

TheHotSpring.net :: Climate change means “global warming”, so how can severe winter storms and excessively cold breezes be evidence of a warming climate? The key is in the word “global”: the warming of the overall global average temperature need not manifest in all places at all times as warmer weather. Throughout the history of human civilization, the Earth’s climate has remained relatively stable, due to optimal global average temperatures; as global average temperatures slip outside that optimal range, the warmer air makes the interaction between climate systems more inconsistent and more severe.

So, while monsoons are failing across Africa and southern Asia, and major rivers are starting to run dry for part of the year, failing to reach the sea, in northern climate bands, storms are getting to be more severe and winter weather is hitting harder. This is because climate bands themselves are blurring, becoming less rigid, less reliable, and so in traditionally temperate climate zones, arctic and tropical air are coming together more often than before, both demonstrating and exacerbating the ongoing destabilization of major climate patterns.

On Sunday in New York City, freezing temperatures, dense snowfall and high winds all coincided with thunder, to the surprise of many, who had never observed this phenomenon before. As explained on the local news, such events can happen when the right combination of factors create a storm with some of the characteristics of summer storms. That means thunder can accompany snowfall if the cloud patterns are being fed by the right mix of freezing air and warmer southerly sea air.

The concern climate scientists have about global warming is not warm days as such, or mild winters, but rather the cumulative effect of warmer global average temperatures. That effect is widespread destabilization of vital climate patterns, and the resulting feedback loop, which would turn warmer high-altitude temperatures into melting glaciers, reduced precipitation and rising sea levels.

If the weather you’re seeing in your hometown is colder than usual, it is not evidence that the global average temperature is not warming. It is, however, consistent with a warming global climate to see weather that is more extreme in temperature or precipitation than has historically been the case in a given region.

One blizzard is not itself proof of global climate destabilization, but a mounting pattern over several years, where tornadoes converge on New York City (September 2010), more than 20% of Pakistan’s entire territory is inundated (summer 2010), hurricanes are more frequent, more numerous and more intense on average (2004-2010), and crops are under increased threat from frost in places like Brazil, Florida and India (1998-2010), are evidence of the destabilization of major climate patterns.

The persistent and mounting melt of Antarctic ice shelves, and their calving into the planet’s oceans, is further evidence of a persistent and mounting global increase in annual average temperatures. No system on Earth is entirely closed. Systems interact, which means chemical compositions of regional air and water flows, temperature adjustments, and frequency and precision of ecosystem services all interact and affect one another.

Such processes honor no political borders, recognize no economic zones and respect no observable boundaries. The warming of waters in the Gulf of Mexico means the Gulf Stream carries that warmer water to northwestern Europe, gradually warming the chill arctic waters, which then become less effective at rapidly cooling the Gulf Stream waters. This is important, because that rapid cooling generates the world’s most massive and powerful waterfall, as the cooled water plunges to the bottom, and flows around Europe and Africa into the Indian Ocean.

That Deep Ocean Current relies on the proper balance of warm and cool water at the precise point where falling water can push the right volume of water around the globe, at the right temperature to maintain key surface temperatures and major climate bands. To understand climate destabilization, it’s more instructive to think about the snowflake than the thermometer: cool temperatures don’t always bring snow, because weather is highly variable from moment to moment; but the fragile, tiny snowflake, of itself harmless, can become a paralyzing force across an entire region. Little incremental ticks of climate relevant data can mount to generate catastrophic change.

Today, we are digging out from under 25 inches of snow that fell in less than 24 hours. Digging out from under comprehensively destabilized global climate systems will not be so easy. The smart money tends to flow toward the more rational approach to problem solving. Having no plan but wait-and-see leads to transit collapse, states of emergency and regional collapse. The smart money for future investment wants to support more rational behavior, the kind that honors human need, human rights and the logic whereby democracy is highly capable of coordinated human brilliance.

http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2010/12/27/7048/climate-destabilization-cold-winter-weather/

Comrade Stalin

blah blah blah.........

How many times in earth history can we see the earth cooling and warming? This is not man made and has never been. If it so sure proof why does the leading experts need to lie to convince the world of this change and we are the cause of it? You would think its a slam dunk with all the proof they claim is out there to back up their claims yet they have to lie to try and prove it....
 
This a familiar tactic from the global warming hysterics - whatever happens, it's proof of global warming. :D

When it's hot, it's proof of global warming.
When it's cold, it's proof of global warming.
When it rains, it's proof of global warming.
When it doesn't rain, it's proof of global warming.

all of those things are part of climate change...world wide...some areas will get hotter, some colder, some wetter some drier...its the overall effect you have to look at...

and funny normally I see the Right saying see no global warming, its snowing...in some state thats not suppose to have snow normally...where I have to repeat again..weather is not climate..

but I am not sure why I bother, unless God himself pops out of the sky and says damn it, stop it, it real...most will never listen ...because they don't want to
 
all of those things are part of climate change...world wide...some areas will get hotter, some colder, some wetter some drier...its the overall effect you have to look at...

and funny normally I see the Right saying see no global warming, its snowing...in some state thats not suppose to have snow normally...where I have to repeat again..weather is not climate..

but I am not sure why I bother, unless God himself pops out of the sky and says damn it, stop it, it real...most will never listen ...because they don't want to

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever the term is these days) is real and it is a major problem...

The next obvious question is... is is man made? I don't think (from what I have seen at least) that such a question has been answered definitively.
 
For the sake of argument, let us assume that Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever the term is these days) is real and it is a major problem...

The next obvious question is... is is man made? I don't think (from what I have seen at least) that such a question has been answered definitively.

your never going to get a 100%...there are so many things going on at once its just not possible...But every major UN report, even white House reports from under Bush W...said yes its real...yes man is excoriating it. And so long as its profitable to energy companies to make sure the Judges is clouded, and so long as politicans get to be the ones in the media talking about it, rather then real scientist..there will be question about who caused it...But in the science community, its pretty much settled for the vast majority as its man made.

let me ask you this...do you think its possible for man to pump as much CO2, and other chemicals into the air for 100 years...and have it make no effect?

Scientists said CFC's did not harm anything for a long time. because they did not want to believe they did, as it would hurt..there employers. How long did they take to say lead in gas was bad bad? it was years and years after we knew it was...but it was not profitable to say it was bad. How many "scientist" and studies did tabaco pull out saying Smoking did not cause cancer...( and still today would if not for fact no one believes it anymore)

Its the same with energy and industrial companies...so long as they can, they will find ways to cloud the debate...but I think for most , its past is it man made...to what do we do about it.
 
...sigh...

Can be please have rational debate instead of right-wing ignorance.

It is a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose."

For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis.

A hypothesis cannot be "proven".

For example

Avogadro's Hypothesis : Equal volumes at the same temperature and pressure contain equal numbers of molecules.

Obviously, one cannot count all the molecules in a given volume.

But...

The hypothesis is used to determine the gas laws and these laws are used to build gas-based systems worldwide.

The climate change hypothesis predicts the current behaviour.

Comrade Stalin
 
...sigh...

Can be please have rational debate instead of right-wing ignorance.

It is a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose."

For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis.

A hypothesis cannot be "proven".

For example

Avogadro's Hypothesis : Equal volumes at the same temperature and pressure contain equal numbers of molecules.

Obviously, one cannot count all the molecules in a given volume.

But...

The hypothesis is used to determine the gas laws and these laws are used to build gas-based systems worldwide.

The climate change hypothesis predicts the current behaviour.

Comrade Stalin

Whom can have a serious debate with anyone that signs every post with "Comrade Stalin"?
 
your never going to get a 100%...there are so many things going on at once its just not possible...But every major UN report, even white House reports from under Bush W...said yes its real...yes man is excoriating it. And so long as its profitable to energy companies to make sure the Judges is clouded, and so long as politicans get to be the ones in the media talking about it, rather then real scientist..there will be question about who caused it...But in the science community, its pretty much settled for the vast majority as its man made.

Good article in the Washington Times yesterday about this issue.

All these climate models seem to have no convincing explanation for why the Earth cooled between 1940 and 1975, despite rapidly rising levels of CO2.

let me ask you this...do you think its possible for man to pump as much CO2, and other chemicals into the air for 100 years...and have it make no effect?

The real question is this: Even if there has been an effect from pumping CO2 into the air for 100 years that does not mean the CO2 is the cause, it just means it plays a role (which we haven not measured)

Scientists said CFC's did not harm anything for a long time. because they did not want to believe they did, as it would hurt..there employers. How long did they take to say lead in gas was bad bad? it was years and years after we knew it was...but it was not profitable to say it was bad. How many "scientist" and studies did tabaco pull out saying Smoking did not cause cancer...( and still today would if not for fact no one believes it anymore)

Its the same with energy and industrial companies...so long as they can, they will find ways to cloud the debate...but I think for most , its past is it man made...to what do we do about it.

I don't think there is real consensus as you are claiming among the scientific community. I think at best, many might agree humans play some role, but that does not mean humans are the cause.
 
...sigh...

Can be please have rational debate instead of right-wing ignorance.

It is a hypothesis.

So you would agree with the argument that the "science" is certainly not settled on the issue?

A hypothesis cannot be "proven".

Yes it can, that is where we get scientific theories from.
 
Al Gorelioni and many others in his Mafia Cult of Warmers have stated the science is settled. He is a very smart man right? Why do you not believe him?

Now be a good DUPE and accept his...lies as truth. If you don't, you are a foolish denier and worthy of scorn and ridicule...
 
Man nor cars has nothing to do with this. Its the sun. Why is Mars experancing global warming too when theres no life on Mars?
 
Werbung:
So you would agree with the argument that the "science" is certainly not settled on the issue?



Yes it can, that is where we get scientific theories from.

No science is settled. Newton's laws were absolute until Relativity.

A hypothesis is propositional. Theories and laws are deduced.

Comrade Stalin
 
Back
Top