Let's watch global warming deniers' heads explode
- Thread starter countryroads89
- Start date
I was just wondering the other day, 'Who is the world's most famous climate scientist?'
James Hansen[thumb2]
Yes, let's all walk down to the nearest seashore and wait for the water to cover us. After all, no outside influences could possibly alter what we dastardly humans have done to the earth's climate. :weary:
But I still can't figure out what caused all the other hundreds of climate changes over the course of the roughly 4.2 billion years before we dastardly humans appeared. I guess we can blame to dastardly dinosaurs?
But I still can't figure out what caused all the other hundreds of climate changes over the course of the roughly 4.2 billion years before we dastardly humans appeared. I guess we can blame to dastardly dinosaurs?
Ahhh, the "scientist" responsible for changing historical temperatures in 1998.
Those pesky satellites must be wrong.
Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 22nd year without warming. Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979.
Source: RSS, http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/#ixzz3gYeGDL35
Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group also shows a prolonged “hiatus” in global warming. After November of this year, RSS data will be in its 22nd year without warming. Ironically, the so-called “hiatus” in warming started when then vice President Al Gore and environmental groups touted RSS satellite data as evidence a slight warming trend since 1979.
Source: RSS, http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/#ixzz3gYeGDL35
During all of those other climate changes, was there mass deforestation, and vast amounts of fossil fuel being burned daily?
No, and yet it still happened.....
So they happened naturally without those kinds of effects ... now you add those effects to a naturally occurring event and you get an acceleration.
Ridiculously complicated concept, I know. I can see why some struggle so much with it.
When I ride my bike down a hill, I keep going down the hill ... pedaling never has any effect at all.
You have a rate of change over time, when that rate of change changes, it's called acceleration.
It doesn't matter.
I can't teach you basic mathmatical concepts. Maybe you should sue your middle school.
What acceleration? The warming that occured from 89 to 98 was not as severe as others.
There's nothing complicated about it, and you can do a simple experiment in your own kitchen: turn your oven on and set it at 300. When it reaches that point, reset it to 325, then 350, and so on. The warmer you set it, the faster it gets to the next benchmark. So of course there would be some acceleration. But while the concept is the same, there's nothing beyond "because I said so!!" to link human activity to climate change. And numerous models as credible as those the AGW (Alarmist Global Warmists) tout show no significant increase in mean temperature, let alone an acceleration. But hey - extremism in defense of alarmism is no vice when it comes to climate change, is it?
Whitetaileer trying to teach the concept of acceleration to some of the posters on this board, LMAO. No offense, Whitetaileer. I'm not making a jab at you. That's almost as funny as Trump.
He's talking about ice melt. It has melted faster than they thought (previously predicted) it would melt. These are tangible, measurable pieces of data. You climate change deniers like to criticize models, but we're talking about measurable pieces of data. And by the way, there were 16 co-authors of the paper.
Antarctic sea ice hit a record high:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
And a boom in a Arctic sea ice:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/20/s...-resilient-to-global-warming-than-we-thought/
Scientific rebuttal to the claims of accelerated sea level rises:
http://www.thegwpf.com/the-sea-level-acceleration-trap/
Last edited:
So you get challenged to back up your claims and you turn to personal attacks.
If you're going to claim acceleration due to man made causes, then prove it, and base it off of a respectable amount of time.
I posted three studies with opposite conclusions. So much for acceleration.
Nobody was talking about until you did dumbass. Again i ask, are you really this stupid?
Why do you keep repeating nonesense? Its almost like you are afraid people will forget you are an idiot.
I worked as an adjunct at a community college and taught introduction to engineering, manufacturing processes, strength of materials ... Going through college I tutored everything from algebra to beginning calculus.
The difference is that those people actually wanted to learn.
I don't need to back up my claims. And it wasn't a personal attack. If you can't understand acceleration, then I can't teach you on this board. You asked over what time frame. Acceleration is a change in the rate of change, it doesn't matter over what timeframe that occurs. It could be instantaneous or it could be over time.
If you're going down the road at 60 mph and tap the brakes, you introduced an acceleration (albeit a negative one) that maybe dropped your rate of change to 55 mph (in this case, what's changing over time is your position, otherwise known as speed, or velocity if there's a directional aspect involved). If you keep your foot on the brake for say 10 seconds, you are applying that acceleration over a longer period of time, and your rate of change would drop to 10mph maybe, or even zero.
So, I said I couldn't teach you but I tried anyway. If you don't understand this, there's really no reason to discuss the myriad aspects of anthropromorphic global warming.
The ice melt is factual. The effects of the ice melt are theoretical. Some other scientists in the article are skeptical of the claims made about the ice melt. Here's what many don't understand, scientists will generally be more excited about their theories being proven wrong because it opens up entirely new possibilities and more things to explore.
Skepticism is good, now people will be looking harder into this theory and may come up with new factors that were never considered, and possibly even find a piece of the puzzle that shows that AGW isn't happening.
However, as long as we have senators that find snow in the middle of February and declare that as proof there is no global warming, there will be an uphill battle.
LMAO!
The fact that you don't see the personal attack shows how narrow minded your view is, which I guess explains why you don't acknowledge that Acceleration does indeed factor in time. Oh... and I'm an Engineer as well champ.
When did I say that acceleration doesn't factor in time? I didn't.
You asked over what time frame and I said that the time frame didn't matter. Meaning, it could be .0001/sec, or it could be several hundred years. We're still just talking basic mathmatical concepts, not even climate change at this point.
As an engineer, you surely aren't foreign to the concept of instantaneous acceleration are you? The limit of the acceleration given an infinitesimally small timeframe? Not zero, but practically zero?
You refuse to accept the notion that humans can have any effect on the climate and I'm the one with the narrow minded view point? OK.
I'm honestly surprised you're an engineer when you close your mind off to those possibilities.
I don't refuse to accept any notion, such as whether or not man has a substantial impact on climate change. I just expect those notions to be based in truth and to be substantiated with facts.
Humans can have an affect on the climate? That is a true statement. But the warmists claim that man is the primary driver of global warming. What is your belief as to man's role? I have posted three studies that dispute your initial claim. The earth has gone 21 years without any significant warming, in full defiance of all the global warming models. Sea ice is very near its greatest extent on record. And sea levels are not rising at an accelerated level.
There are thousands of papers from scientists all over the world that have done exactly that.
I have read a lot of hypothesis on man's impact, I have read attempts to correlate data based on future modeling forecasts but I have never seen tangible data to back up the claim. I'm being honest here. I'm open to the ideas and I believe the theories make sense, but the wackos on both sides are screwing up the debate.
