Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming

[Big Fitz]

All right, I decided it was worth going back over the thread.

I am not sure why you even bothered to start posting in this thread other than to assert the raising sea levels point because you took umbrage with my Ice Cube analogy.

In this point you were right and I was wrong. The Greenland Ice Sheet is supported by land. That was my error, while I was certain it was more sea based. In this you corrected me. Fine, done deal. On the other hand, I am dead on right with all sea supported ice caps.

Where you are wrong, and continue to be wrong is that even if you DID melt the whole ice cap, it would not be catastrophic due to a variety of factors ranging from basic evaporation and length of time.

Some warmists push the theory that this will happen in several hundred years. Unfortunately their data is compromised due to the Hadley Hoaxers deliberately creating models that presented artificial change to fit their theory, not reflect real events. Plus the fact that they have thrown out original data to cover up their fraud makes their science all the less believable.

Your support though, unwaivered from this scientific expose is what baffles me above all. It tells me that you are devoted to the goals, rather than the science. Now if they could come out and prove that the AAGW science has been doctored, I'd be much more inclined to believe that mankind may have a greater role than I have seen in the changing of the climate. But more likely, I'd demand the science redone, since you cannot prove anything with fraudulant science for political gain.

You've still to prove anything yourself. You have only attempted to derive credibility through attacking my error in math and geography. So, I'll be the bigger man here. What have you got to prove your point, or was this all about being a dick about my mistaken analogy?

thanks for that post. i was primarily a dick to you, because you made those mistakes in the manner of an obnoxious loudmouth who cannot understand where he is wrong and tries to compensate by being even more of an obnoxious loudmouth. but now you stated you were wrong, and i can quit being a dick to you. for now. lol.
i usually don't argue this kind of issues on an internet board, because it is infested with indoctrinated pundit-wannabes, most of them having no idea what they are spouting off. the rare good posts will be mocked, or deflected. but you made such glaring beginners' errors, i had to post.

Nice left-handed compliment. Would you like your dagger returned from my back, or can I keep it?

 

[L.K.Eder]

All right, I decided it was worth going back over the thread.

I am not sure why you even bothered to start posting in this thread other than to assert the raising sea levels point because you took umbrage with my Ice Cube analogy.

In this point you were right and I was wrong. The Greenland Ice Sheet is supported by land. That was my error, while I was certain it was more sea based. In this you corrected me. Fine, done deal. On the other hand, I am dead on right with all sea supported ice caps.

Where you are wrong, and continue to be wrong is that even if you DID melt the whole ice cap, it would not be catastrophic due to a variety of factors ranging from basic evaporation and length of time.

Some warmists push the theory that this will happen in several hundred years. Unfortunately their data is compromised due to the Hadley Hoaxers deliberately creating models that presented artificial change to fit their theory, not reflect real events. Plus the fact that they have thrown out original data to cover up their fraud makes their science all the less believable.

Your support though, unwaivered from this scientific expose is what baffles me above all. It tells me that you are devoted to the goals, rather than the science. Now if they could come out and prove that the AAGW science has been doctored, I'd be much more inclined to believe that mankind may have a greater role than I have seen in the changing of the climate. But more likely, I'd demand the science redone, since you cannot prove anything with fraudulant science for political gain.

You've still to prove anything yourself. You have only attempted to derive credibility through attacking my error in math and geography. So, I'll be the bigger man here. What have you got to prove your point, or was this all about being a dick about my mistaken analogy?

thanks for that post. i was primarily a dick to you, because you made those mistakes in the manner of an obnoxious loudmouth who cannot understand where he is wrong and tries to compensate by being even more of an obnoxious loudmouth. but now you stated you were wrong, and i can quit being a dick to you. for now. lol.
i usually don't argue this kind of issues on an internet board, because it is infested with indoctrinated pundit-wannabes, most of them having no idea what they are spouting off. the rare good posts will be mocked, or deflected. but you made such glaring beginners' errors, i had to post.

Nice left-handed compliment. Would you like your dagger returned from my back, or can I keep it?

don't expect me to be all nicey nice now, just because you kind of admitted you were wrong. i'd like the dagger back, if you would be so nice. those things are expensive, and i need lots of them.

 

[saveliberty]

thanks for that post. i was primarily a dick to you, because you made those mistakes in the manner of an obnoxious loudmouth who cannot understand where he is wrong and tries to compensate by being even more of an obnoxious loudmouth. but now you stated you were wrong, and i can quit being a dick to you. for now. lol.
i usually don't argue this kind of issues on an internet board, because it is infested with indoctrinated pundit-wannabes, most of them having no idea what they are spouting off. the rare good posts will be mocked, or deflected. but you made such glaring beginners' errors, i had to post.

Nice left-handed compliment. Would you like your dagger returned from my back, or can I keep it?

don't expect me to be all nicey nice now, just because you kind of admitted you were wrong. i'd like the dagger back, if you would be so nice. those things are expensive, and i need lots of them.

For a loud-mouthed dick yourself, you need to be a little more forgiving Eder. Just saying.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Nice left-handed compliment. Would you like your dagger returned from my back, or can I keep it?

don't expect me to be all nicey nice now, just because you kind of admitted you were wrong. i'd like the dagger back, if you would be so nice. those things are expensive, and i need lots of them.

For a loud-mouthed dick yourself, you need to be a little more forgiving Eder. Just saying.

big fitz has wounded me so badly in our exchange, i need some time to heal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on guys. Surely we can have one thread that doesn't dissolve into personal insults and get banished to the flame zone. Pretty please?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Come on guys. Surely we can have one thread that doesn't dissolve into personal insults and get banished to the flame zone. Pretty please?

lol, you ARE an eternal optimist. i am now healed, and will behave.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are two types of statistics: the real ones and the ones that prove mankind is causing Global Warming

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on guys. Surely we can have one thread that doesn't dissolve into personal insults and get banished to the flame zone. Pretty please?

lol, you ARE an eternal optimist. i am now healed, and will behave.

Hugs

 

[Foxfyre]

There are two types of statistics: the real ones and the ones that prove mankind is causing Global Warming

Well, it is indisputable that humankind can and does affect the climate where he lives if concentrations are sufficient enough. When we pave over huge tracts of ground, deforest, add foliage, or add huge amounts of foreign substances to the soil, water, air, it does have an affect on that particular area. See the clouds that form over forest fires and volcanoes for instance while air that is clear of the smoke or emitted gasses is cloudless. And we know that an eruption from a very large volcano can affect the weather over very large areas for some time. It is theorized that if most of the world's nuclear arsenal was detonated in the atmosphere it would have significant if not devastating effect.

But even six billion people on Earth inhabit a relatively small area. I read once that all six billion could be placed inside the State of Texas and there would be a population density no greater than that of San Francisco. To assume that those people just living their lives as best they can are significantly changing the climate of the Planet just doesn't seem plausible. And it seems ludicrous that whatever efforts they make in lifestyle would have a significant effect on that even if we all reverted to a stone age standard of living.

We already posted that the number of monitoring stations has been significantly reduced over the last several decades and many of those that remain were once in open country and are now surrounded by construction, paving, and other human activity. So how representative are they of actual climate changes on a global scale?

I am quite willing to take my chances at this time and just keep living my life as responsibly as I can and I'm not worried that I'm dooming you all to some terrible catastrophe as a result of that.

 

[saveliberty]

don't expect me to be all nicey nice now, just because you kind of admitted you were wrong. i'd like the dagger back, if you would be so nice. those things are expensive, and i need lots of them.

For a loud-mouthed dick yourself, you need to be a little more forgiving Eder. Just saying.

big fitz has wounded me so badly in our exchange, i need some time to heal.

Hey, I think your funny at times and contribute too. Math skills are a plus.

 

[Big Fitz]

Come on guys. Surely we can have one thread that doesn't dissolve into personal insults and get banished to the flame zone. Pretty please?

I tried, but I hads a fail instead.

We shall attempt to get back on course... towards debunking Global Warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are two types of statistics: the real ones and the ones that prove mankind is causing Global Warming

Well, it is indisputable that humankind can and does affect the climate where he lives if concentrations are sufficient enough. When we pave over huge tracts of ground, deforest, add foliage, or add huge amounts of foreign substances to the soil, water, air, it does have an affect on that particular area. See the clouds that form over forest fires and volcanoes for instance while air that is clear of the smoke or emitted gasses is cloudless. And we know that an eruption from a very large volcano can affect the weather over very large areas for some time. It is theorized that if most of the world's nuclear arsenal was detonated in the atmosphere it would have significant if not devastating effect.

But even six billion people on Earth inhabit a relatively small area. I read once that all six billion could be placed inside the State of Texas and there would be a population density no greater than that of San Francisco. To assume that those people just living their lives as best they can are significantly changing the climate of the Planet just doesn't seem plausible. And it seems ludicrous that whatever efforts they make in lifestyle would have a significant effect on that even if we all reverted to a stone age standard of living.

We already posted that the number of monitoring stations has been significantly reduced over the last several decades and many of those that remain were once in open country and are now surrounded by construction, paving, and other human activity. So how representative are they of actual climate changes on a global scale?

I am quite willing to take my chances at this time and just keep living my life as responsibly as I can and I'm not worried that I'm dooming you all to some terrible catastrophe as a result of that.

Foxfyre, this is a site from the American Institute of Physics. It outlines the history of the investigation of Greenhouse gases. It also provided many links to other scienticific sources.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now I have posted in other threads the latest investigations that were outlined in the American Geophysical Union lectures at their convention in 2009 in December. If you are truly interested in the science, and are not just into blind denial as the majority of the people on this board, I will post them here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does anyone ever measure how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?

 

[Old Rocks]

There are two types of statistics: the real ones and the ones that prove mankind is causing Global Warming

Well, it is indisputable that humankind can and does affect the climate where he lives if concentrations are sufficient enough. When we pave over huge tracts of ground, deforest, add foliage, or add huge amounts of foreign substances to the soil, water, air, it does have an affect on that particular area. See the clouds that form over forest fires and volcanoes for instance while air that is clear of the smoke or emitted gasses is cloudless. And we know that an eruption from a very large volcano can affect the weather over very large areas for some time. It is theorized that if most of the world's nuclear arsenal was detonated in the atmosphere it would have significant if not devastating effect.

But even six billion people on Earth inhabit a relatively small area. I read once that all six billion could be placed inside the State of Texas and there would be a population density no greater than that of San Francisco. To assume that those people just living their lives as best they can are significantly changing the climate of the Planet just doesn't seem plausible. And it seems ludicrous that whatever efforts they make in lifestyle would have a significant effect on that even if we all reverted to a stone age standard of living.

We already posted that the number of monitoring stations has been significantly reduced over the last several decades and many of those that remain were once in open country and are now surrounded by construction, paving, and other human activity. So how representative are they of actual climate changes on a global scale?

I am quite willing to take my chances at this time and just keep living my life as responsibly as I can and I'm not worried that I'm dooming you all to some terrible catastrophe as a result of that.

Foxfyre, here is a site from the American Institute of Physics, that outlines the history of the investigation of greenhouse gases.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

If you are truly interested in the science, and not just seeking nonsense to hang your denial of reality on, I can also supply you with lectures from the December 2009 American Geophysical Union conferance showing the past corelations of CO2 and temperature. And what is happening at present.

 

[Old Rocks]

Does anyone ever measure how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?

Yes. Do you ever bother to research what climatologists are actually doing right now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on guys. Surely we can have one thread that doesn't dissolve into personal insults and get banished to the flame zone. Pretty please?

I tried, but I hads a fail instead.

We shall attempt to get back on course... towards debunking Global Warming.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does anyone ever measure how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?

Yes. Do you ever bother to research what climatologists are actually doing right now?

"The most important was simple water vapor (H2O)."

Yeah, actually I kind of skimmed through your article, so I'll ask again, does anyone ever measure how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on guys. Surely we can have one thread that doesn't dissolve into personal insults and get banished to the flame zone. Pretty please?

I tried, but I hads a fail instead.

We shall attempt to get back on course... towards debunking Global Warming.

A hug for you too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Does anyone ever measure how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?

Yes. Do you ever bother to research what climatologists are actually doing right now?

"The most important was simple water vapor (H2O)."

Yeah, actually I kind of skimmed through your article, so I'll ask again, does anyone ever measure how much water vapor is in the atmosphere?

A pertinent question. I've read the more public opinions of PhD climate scientists who say that global temperatures are driven by water vapor much more than CO2. But there isn't any focus there, of course, because how in the world do we monkey around with water vapor in the atmosphere without creating far more problems than we could ever solve?

 

[saveliberty]

The strongest correlation of two factors in global warming are increased funding levels for researchers and increased temperature data manipulation resulting in higher temperature anamolies.