Remember me
▼ Content

A slightly different angle



Page 2 of 3<123>
20-01-2017 23:00
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Yes, my contract expires when Earth expires
.... we got a long way to go.
20-01-2017 23:32
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Surface Detail wrote:IBdaMann.... suddenly stopped. His stopping coincided almost exactly with your joining, and now you're here, posting in similar quantity and verbosity.

IIIIiiiiIII think, "old sick silly sleepy sleazy AGW denier liar whiner i b da no-sigh-ants mann" pretended to give me sssoooooo much praise, it made him sick, so he quit.
20-01-2017 23:57
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" gushed: There are so damn many factors and variables to weather and climate, it is absolute ignorance to point to one thing and say this is causing our .85C over the last 100 years.


"old sick silly sleepy sleazy AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" can't figger et out..... so nobody can. Them scientists are stupid. Egotistical, he is. Can't put a muffler on its gaz.
If GHG emissions ended now, temperatures would continue rising because of lag time. Emissions ain't endin', but increasing...& temps will accelerate their rise. "old sick silly sleepy sleazy AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr" just bluffs its way through its gush.
21-01-2017 00:06
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
litesong wrote:
Emissions ain't endin', but increasing...& temps will accelerate their rise. gasguzlr & gazmuflr" just bluffs its way through its gush.


What's that you say?? Just trying to learn here. Temps will accelerate the emissions? Thought sure it was explained by you, exactly the other way around. Who's bluffing now!?
21-01-2017 01:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Let me be clear.

Greenhouse gas
95% water vapor
3.62% CO2
1.38% Other

Mankind contribution to the 3.62% total CO2 is anywhere from 3-6%, depending on what study you believe. I am unable to find a 30% claim that man creates 30% of all atmospheric CO2. So what we are left with is 3-6% of the 3.8% total CO2....equals anywhere from 11 hundredths of a percent to 22 hundredths of a percent. Not much to freak out over.

Funny...when I started this thread I asked what you would do as a supreme leader to fix this issue.

Not a single suggestion from anyone. Why?


I have an idea for a wind power system that would produce electricity cheaper than coal but that would not stop the panic as the panic is not based on reality.

To stop the panic we need a law that says that if you call something scince and lie then you go to jail. Or if you pressurise somebody to do so you also go to jail. That would sort it.
21-01-2017 02:03
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"tipped the leaky flubber" flopped:....if you call something scince and lie then you go to jail.

"scince".... dat's ah bat wert.... fer shore!
21-01-2017 05:00
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gazmuflr) gushed: Temps will accelerate the emissions?

Arctic methane emissions are climbing.... because of high Arctic temperatures. From Sam Carana:In December 2016, it was 6.58°C (11.84°F) warmer from latitude 83°N to the North Pole compared 1951-1980... When comparing the current temperature to years such as 1900 or 1750... 2016, the global temperature was well above....1.5°C (2.7°F)...
Heat in the bio-sphere:
https://robertscribbler.com/tag/methane/#jp-carousel-13737
Ya ain't learnin' nothin' because it slips outta yer brain-pan.
Edited on 21-01-2017 05:34
23-01-2017 01:27
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gasguzlr & gasmuflr" gushed: What's that you say?? Just trying to learn here.

Nah. You came with yer AGW denier hat on, & you never tipped yer hat once.
23-01-2017 06:07
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Let me be clear.

Greenhouse gas
95% water vapor
3.62% CO2
1.38% Other

Mankind contribution to the 3.62% total CO2 is anywhere from 3-6%, depending on what study you believe. I am unable to find a 30% claim that man creates 30% of all atmospheric CO2. So what we are left with is 3-6% of the 3.8% total CO2....equals anywhere from 11 hundredths of a percent to 22 hundredths of a percent. Not much to freak out over.

Funny...when I started this thread I asked what you would do as a supreme leader to fix this issue.

Not a single suggestion from anyone. Why?


I have an idea for a wind power system that would produce electricity cheaper than coal but that would not stop the panic as the panic is not based on reality.

To stop the panic we need a law that says that if you call something scince and lie then you go to jail. Or if you pressurise somebody to do so you also go to jail. That would sort it.


Great idea Tim. That would sort it all out pretty quick I think.

Funny though, still not a single suggestion from the left wingers.

I think they may be afraid of being exposed for the defeatist cowards they are.

No?

Then tell me what it is that needs to be done yesterday before we all fry at the hands of another 1/2 a degree.
23-01-2017 18:02
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
To reply to the original question:

1. I would force every country to invest / build Thorium nuclear reactors and switch the planet to 100% nuclear generated power.
2. I would take over the Sahara Dessert and build a Solar furnace powered Lithium Hydride CO2 extraction System.
a. If I used half the area of the Sahara I should be able to get the Global CO2 levels down to pre-industrial age levels in 10 years.
b. By product of the extraction process will be carbon Nano Tubes that we can then use to build a space elevator!

So that is what I would do with unlimited power and resources; trouble is what happens to the climate when we get back to those Pre-industrial age levels? Does the ice age kick in straight away or will it take a couple of years.
23-01-2017 18:11
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
MK001

Thank you for the honest answers. I'm not sure about the space elevator, but nuclear is something both sides can have a good discussion about. Why have we not built any nuclear power plants in the last ~25 years? Any one from the left against them? Why?
23-01-2017 22:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
I'd like to see fossil fuels taxed at source, at a level sufficient to substantially reduce their attractiveness. I'd then use this income to reduce or eliminate taxes on labour (income tax) and goods (sales tax). Then I'd leave the market to do its thing.

I'd anticipate that the market response to a high carbon tax would probably a mixture of nuclear plants and gas-backed wind and solar plants, together with advances in energy storage and demand management technologies. Another market response would be a surge in energy-saving techniques such as insulation, heat pumps and the like, as well as smaller, more efficient cars.

Note that I'm not in favour of banning anything, merely of demanding a price consistent with negative externalities. Hence fossil fuels will then still be available, but will only be worth using where they are absolutely necessary, or where folk are prepared to pay for the privilege.
23-01-2017 22:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Let me be clear.

Greenhouse gas
95% water vapor
3.62% CO2
1.38% Other

Mankind contribution to the 3.62% total CO2 is anywhere from 3-6%, depending on what study you believe. I am unable to find a 30% claim that man creates 30% of all atmospheric CO2. So what we are left with is 3-6% of the 3.8% total CO2....equals anywhere from 11 hundredths of a percent to 22 hundredths of a percent. Not much to freak out over.

Funny...when I started this thread I asked what you would do as a supreme leader to fix this issue.

Not a single suggestion from anyone. Why?


I have an idea for a wind power system that would produce electricity cheaper than coal but that would not stop the panic as the panic is not based on reality.

To stop the panic we need a law that says that if you call something scince and lie then you go to jail. Or if you pressurise somebody to do so you also go to jail. That would sort it.


Great idea Tim. That would sort it all out pretty quick I think.

Funny though, still not a single suggestion from the left wingers.

I think they may be afraid of being exposed for the defeatist cowards they are.

No?

Then tell me what it is that needs to be done yesterday before we all fry at the hands of another 1/2 a degree.


I am a liberal.
23-01-2017 23:00
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
I don't care what you are. As long as we talk honestly about facts and not feelings. I still agree with you on locking up "science liars". To me they're far worse than the idiot screaming fire in a crowded theatre because millions more affected by junk science hysteria.
24-01-2017 00:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
And who do you propose should determine who the science liars are?
24-01-2017 01:06
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Surface Detail wrote:
And who do you propose should determine who the science liars are?



I think the honor system would work quite nicely......



There is so much BS on BOTH sides of this. Tired of it. Just want an honest discussion, but it can never happen with the $ involved....again, on both sides.
24-01-2017 01:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
And who do you propose should determine who the science liars are?



I think the honor system would work quite nicely......



There is so much BS on BOTH sides of this. Tired of it. Just want an honest discussion, but it can never happen with the $ involved....again, on both sides.

The thing is, was already have a system to determine what actually constitutes real science. It's called peer review. While no system can possibly guarantee that every scientific paper is correct, it is, at least a first line of defence against BS. At a minimum, we can say that any information that cannot be traced back to a peer-reviewed paper should be treated with considerable caution.

Do this, and you'll find that, no, there isn't large amounts of BS on both sides. The BS is almost entirely from the denial side. The idea that there is any significant disagreement amongst the vast majority of climate scientists on the fundamentals of AGW is entirely a political construct, funded and maintained by those who stand to lose out from any moves away from fossil fuels.
24-01-2017 03:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
GasGuzzler wrote:There is so much BS on BOTH sides of this.


There are more than two sides.

My side, for example, is the purely science side and it has never been mistaken.

I suggest my side determine who the science liars are since my side can spot them the moment they try to explain "greenhouse effect" or when they conflate thermal radiation with thermal convection.

In fact, I do it already. It's too easy.

Oh, and Surface Detail is about #48 on the science liar's list.

p.s. - you say you want an honest discussion. Is that offer genuine?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2017 07:23
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail is about #48 on the science liar's list.
p.s. - you say you want an honest discussion. Is that offer genuine?.


I am absolutely genuine in wanting an honest discussion.

A bit about myself; I have been pretty clear about myself. I did not graduate high school so with no diploma I learned quick to survive on common sense and hard work. Later, I learned to thrive on it. With no formal education, I obviously don't have the science back round that many of you do. But so so often I can spot hooey with common sense. It's funny to me when someone is so smart and educated but they have no idea how to properly apply their knowledge. Prime example was the post today about melting ice and trying to apply physics to the forward speed of melted water. This person estimated the speed would have to be around mach 1. Wow!

Politics: I have never supported a democrat in my life and likely never will. I believe the founders of the greatest and most powerful nation in the world had unbelievable vision, and the democrat party (liberals) have no interest in keeping the wish of our forefathers for limited gov, personal freedom, and basic rugged individualism. I am a survivor of my own stupidity, but damn it, I never took the gov hand out. If I had accepted that welfare check I'd still be on it today. Today, without the gov welfare, and without the gov education, I am in the top 10% of wage earners in good old USA. So you see I think the Dems just suck because they want 25-40% of my sweat, blood and tears to give away to some blockhead sittin on his drunk ass in his trailer and not working. The Dems are enablers and they are just buying votes and they know it. Wow, didn't mean to go on that much of a rant.

Global warming and weather.
I may not have the formal education, but I can read and research just fine. One thing I understand and do have in depth knowledge of is weather. It has always been a passion of mine and I used to go storm chasing on my bicycle. Pretty dumb! Anyway, I used to think maybe this global warming thing had some teeth to it. But then every time I turn on the TV I hear some nut blaming some weather event on GW. I would hear things that were just physically impossible, from some reporter who had likely been spoon fed from another that was lying or popping methane for recycling.

Yes, I'd like an honest conversation. But even here on this website, someone will post a link about the global warming crisis. I go to the site and the first thing I see is pictures of flooded cars or a tornado ravaged town. I know there is no need to read that article. It's propaganda by pictures. They may or may not directly blamed AGW, but they definitely want you to. It's misleading at best....and way too many ignorant fall for it. Great, it's just more democrat votes. I have yet to find a study that can directly link, with indisputable evidence, AGW to floods and drought. Oh, go ahead, send me all your links. Read them closely.
"studies suggest"
"scientist research points to"
"models show that future''.....
"research suggests"
"if we don't "X" then we could "Z" "
"could potentially be"
And then some moron is off and running with "new study shows", and before ya know it it's fact that I'm supposed to bend over and believe. NO! I've had enough Kool-Aid

I just want facts, I don't care about dumb theories. I've read them all. If this globe is actually warming to our doomsday, then prove that first until no "scientist" on earth disagrees. Then prove that we can actually do something meaningful about it and I'll be on board. I'm an outdoors man. I love bow hunting and fishing and just being out in it. I want pollution and dirty water just as much as the next guy. So, I still have an open mind about this AGW thing, but the more research I do, the more I'm convinced that it is something that was once genuinely feared by many, but now it's being promoted by a few.
24-01-2017 10:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I just want facts, I don't care about dumb theories. I've read them all. If this globe is actually warming to our doomsday, then prove that first until no "scientist" on earth disagrees. Then prove that we can actually do something meaningful about it and I'll be on board.

This is an illogical attitude. Nobody can prove that future events will certainly happen. There are no facts about the future, just probabilities, and a rational person behaves accordingly.

Or are you a regular Russian Roulette player? After all nobody can prove that the bullet is in the firing chamber; there's just a 1 in 6 chance. So, following your logic, you'd be quite happy to hold the gun to your head for a couple of bucks.
24-01-2017 12:36
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
I don't do propaganda by pictures, and scare tactics are even more dishonest. .85 degree rise in 100 years, how many have died from that? Everyone in the desert should be dead because I hear the temp can rise 60 F in one day. Someone please show me just one major weather event where people died proven to be caused by GW and it's 100 year rise of .85.
24-01-2017 12:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I don't do propaganda by pictures, and scare tactics are even more dishonest. .85 degree rise in 100 years, how many have died from that? Everyone in the desert should be dead because I hear the temp can rise 60 F in one day. Someone please show me just one major weather event where people died proven to be caused by GW and it's 100 year rise of .85.

That's another logic glitch. The first signs of AGW are becoming apparent today, but we're mostly talking about the future.

You wake up in the night and smell smoke. Do you say, "Well, nobody died yet," and go back to sleep?
24-01-2017 13:09
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Yep yep...Gotta git up and find the fire. If I don't find it then back to bed I go.

I've seen enough to get me up and looking, but heading back to bed real soon.

Can anyone provide a weather event where people died that shows proof of GW?

Otherwise I see no cause for panic. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
24-01-2017 13:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Yep yep...Gotta git up and find the fire. If I don't find it then back to bed I go.

I've seen enough to get me up and looking, but heading back to bed real soon.

Can anyone provide a weather event where people died that shows proof of GW?

Otherwise I see no cause for panic. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The smoke is there in form of incipient rising temperatures, rising seas and diminishing ice cover. Granted, it's not a problem yet, but simply choosing to ignore these warning signs is, again, not rational behaviour.
24-01-2017 13:37
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
What do you mean it's not a problem yet????

Are you saying the millions of deaths blamed on GW thus far may actually be exaggerated a bit?
24-01-2017 13:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
What do you mean it's not a problem yet????

Are you saying the millions of deaths blamed on GW thus far may actually be exaggerated a bit?

It would appear to be you who is prone to exaggeration. It's probable that AGW made storms such as Sandy more powerful than they would otherwise have been, but, AFAIK, no scientist is saying that millions of deaths can already be blamed on GW.
24-01-2017 13:56
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Do a quick Google.... Plenty of studies from 2008-2010 saying 300,000 per year dead from global warming. Im not exaggerating.

How was Sandy more powerful because of GW?
24-01-2017 14:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Do a quick Google.... Plenty of studies from 2008-2010 saying 300,000 per year dead from global warming. Im not exaggerating.

How was Sandy more powerful because of GW?

"Google it yourself" has never been a valid way to back up a point. How about a link or reference to one of these many studies?

It's thought that GW makes storms more powerful by raising the temperature of the surface of the ocean, thus making more energy available to them.
24-01-2017 14:24
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Sure I'll throw up some links but got to go for a while now,. Kid got the flu in the middle of the night, duty calls.

Wonder if the flu is tied to GW?....,..................................... KIDDING!
24-01-2017 22:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
GasGuzzler wrote: I am absolutely genuine in wanting an honest discussion.


GasGuzzler wrote: I did not graduate high school so with no diploma I learned quick to survive on common sense and hard work.

For my part, I care nothing for anyone's credentials and I never reveal mine. That's because I only want to discuss science. If there is some science you don't know I'll be happy to teach you.

What always fascinates me is how Global Warming worshipers will desperately rush to claim that science does not apply wherever their Global Warming religion is concerned.

Let me back up a step. You might not be aware that none of the Global Warming and none of the Climate Change religions are supported by any science whatsoever and that, in fact, science runs counter to their beliefs.

I'd be happy to walk you through it. Surface Detail is a prime science denier who feels the need to fall on his credibility sword in defense of his faith.

It all starts with this law: "greenhouse effect" cannot be falsifiably expressed without violating physics.

I'm sure we can get Surface Detail to jump in here and fail miserably to falsifiably express "greenhouse effect" without violating physics.

The next time you are talking to a warmizombie, ask him to provide the Global Warming equation or the Climate constant.

GasGuzzler wrote: With no formal education, I obviously don't have the science back round that many of you do.

The only thing you must have is a scientist' attitude. Doubt everything. Question everything. Trust no person's opinion blindly.

You can always get someone like me to explain science to you and explain how you can verify that it isn't bunk.

So, Surface Detail, are you in? Can we count on you to attempt to falsifiably express "greenhouse effect" without violating physics?

GasGuzzler wrote: Politics: I have never supported a democrat in my life and likely never will.

Hillary for Prison 2017!

GasGuzzler wrote: I believe the founders of the greatest and most powerful nation in the world had unbelievable vision, and the democrat party (liberals) have no interest in keeping the wish of our forefathers for limited gov, personal freedom, and basic rugged individualism.

Enough said. You are a wise man.

GasGuzzler wrote: Anyway, I used to think maybe this global warming thing had some teeth to it. But then every time I turn on the TV I hear some nut blaming some weather event on GW.

I once planned to program up a "climate predictor" program, make a chitload of money and win the Nobel Prize ... until I started asking fellow climate change believers how I could get the "climate science" model so I could program it. They instantly turned into mindless, glazed-eyed zombies who hissed "denier!" I couldn't reason with them; I couldn't convince them that I just needed the science. They just became hateful chitteads.

It became clear very quickly that there wasn't any "climate" science. I then decided to apply standard science to the matter and found that Global Warming is crap that runs counter to physics. The best way to work through the myriad logic rabbit holes dug by warmizombies is start by asking for a falsifiable statement of "greenhouse effect" that doesn't violate physics. You will never get one.

GasGuzzler wrote: But even here on this website, someone will post a link about the global warming crisis.

Just ignore links. Tell people to post in their posts what they need to say in their own words.

We really need to get Surface Detail in on this. It really is so much fun when he is in full denial mode. Talk to him. Get him to jump in with us.


GasGuzzler wrote: I have yet to find a study that can directly link, with indisputable evidence, AGW to floods and drought.

*I* don't go for "evidence" and I ignore most "studies." Neither are science.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2017 22:43
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Good post, thank you. My skepticism actually comes from my understanding of local weather. How can warming be blamed for weather events and the two not be talked about in the same discussion/debate? If you're going to tell me one efects the other, you better understand the other! It is pretty obvious for me when some lib gets on the tv and spews absolute BS on how the warmer globe created the local weather situation. The warming explanation almost always flies in the face of what actually happened. I don't need to have a damn degree to call BS.

Surface Detail and I have a dialog going on another thread...it was left this morning, I had to run. I will have some question for her tonight. I'm sorry, is Surface Detail a him? I think cleaning lady with that name.
25-01-2017 00:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Or they might of got the name from the book, that is my guess

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7937744-surface-detail

If your interested my name is meaningless.
25-01-2017 01:10
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
spot wrote:
Or they might of got the name from the book, that is my guess

If your interested my name is meaningless.



You sure bout that?

[img][/img]
Attached image:

25-01-2017 22:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
GasGuzzler wrote: My skepticism actually comes from my understanding of local weather.

Two things about this line here:

1. I am normally dubious about people who adopt the label "skeptic" (I often refer to them as "climate lemmings"). In almost every case they aren't skeptical of any of the WACKY Global Warming religious dogma. They worship the same tenets of the Global Warming religion as the warmizombies and only differ in their rejection of ultimate catastrophic planetary doom fear-mongering. Otherwise they are on religiously devoted to the sacrament of "greenhouse effect" which they see as a good thing, i.e. the Climate goddess is cradling the earth in gentle warmth to enhance the quality of life of humanity. Warmizombies, by contrast, view humanity as inherently vile rapists of the Climate goddess who, in turn, has no other recourse than to cause extreme weather events in self defense. Of course, in the warmizombie cult, those who don't rape Climate are naturally holier than thou, and thus are better than you, because you must be too stupid to understand "The Science."

2. You have already lost if you allow weather to enter the conversation. Weather is observable, measurable and verifiable. Climate is a word in the dictionary and is not defined in science. Of course a "global climate" has powerful meaning to warmizombies and climate lemmings alike ... but they just don't bother to question it, or even to think about it.

It is a contradiction in terms. "Climate" just means "local conditions." Global is the logical opposite of "local." You can't have a global local condition. The earth has millions of climates. Ask any warmizombie or climate lemming what the average of all the earth's climates looks like. Is it dry and arid flood? This fog but sunny and clear? A sweltering freeze? Clearly none of them have thought this through.

If you start trying to use weather as the basis for your counterarguments you will quickly be dismissed with a "talk to the hand, Climate is not weather" followed with the obligatory insult to your intelligence "how are you so stupid that you don't know Climate from weather?"

GasGuzzler wrote: It is pretty obvious for me when some lib gets on the tv and spews absolute BS on how the warmer globe created the local weather situation.

Do you find it odd that warmer weather is blamed for floods (high precipitation), but when you cite instances of extreme drought (low precipitation) as obvious global cooling, warmizombies insist that warmer weather causes that as well ... and that record cold temperatures are also evidence of Global Warming?

Just ask any warmizombie if Global Warming increases precipitation or decreases it. They will smell the trap immediately and respond with "you can tell where it decreases precipitation because there is drought and you can tell where it increases precipitation because there are floods. Global Warming makes weather more EXTREME in such a way that it is always bad for humanity."

GasGuzzler wrote: I don't need to have a damn degree to call BS.

That is absolutely true, and very wise. Any eight-year-old who cites science is just as correct as the scientist that developed that science. You are just a few science models away from being able to swat any warmizombie's or climate lemming's argument aside, and they are basic. You don't need a damn degree.

GasGuzzler wrote: I'm sorry, is Surface Detail a him?

Proper English grammar calls for the masculine pronoun when gender is not known, and this is an anonymous forum. If Surface Detail would prefer to be addressed in the feminine then that should be overtly requested.

In the meantime, look up the following terms (preferably anywhere but Wikipedia) and just read a paragraph or two on each one.

Law of Conservation of Energy
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Planck's Law

If you understand the basics of those then you will be insurmountable against the Global Warming undead.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-01-2017 23:06
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Surface Detail wrote:
It would appear to be you who is prone to exaggeration...... no scientist is saying that millions of deaths can already be blamed on GW.


Ah, yes...all the liars are on my side.
"A report released earlier this year from the climate change watch group DARA estimates that the deaths related to climate change and its chief driver, fossil fuels, were roughly 5 million in 2010. That number makes climate change one of the leading causes of death in the world."
terroris

www.discovery.com/.../climate-change-by-the-numbers-600000-deaths-annually/
This one claims 600,000

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-per-year-die-from-climate-change
This is from "Kofi Annan's think tank" .

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030
This one says 4.5 million per year and 100 million total by 2030

I could go on and on, but "google it yourself"
https://newrepublic.com/.../map-climate-change-kills-more-people-worldwide-terroris This one claims 400,000 per year

www.discovery.com/.../climate-change-by-the-numbers-600000-deaths-annually/
This one claims 600,000

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-per-year-die-from-climate-change
This is from "Kofi Annan's think tank" .

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030
This one says 4.5 million per year and 100 million total by 2030

I could go on and on, but "google it yourself"
Edited on 25-01-2017 23:10
25-01-2017 23:20
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
IBdaMann wrote:
If you start trying to use weather as the basis for your counterarguments you will quickly be dismissed with a "talk to the hand, Climate is not weather" followed with the obligatory insult to your intelligence "how are you so stupid that you don't know Climate from weather?"


This is the part that just hacks me off. How can climate not be weather? Climate is by definition the historical average of weather. So if you want to talk global climate change then it is only makes sense to talk GLOBAL weather. But the rot gut that that is spewed by the likes of CNN should be criminal when they blame LOCAL events on GLOBAL warming.

Thanks for the info, I'll do some learning later tonight.
26-01-2017 00:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It would appear to be you who is prone to exaggeration...... no scientist is saying that millions of deaths can already be blamed on GW.


Ah, yes...all the liars are on my side.
"A report released earlier this year from the climate change watch group DARA estimates that the deaths related to climate change and its chief driver, fossil fuels, were roughly 5 million in 2010. That number makes climate change one of the leading causes of death in the world."
terroris

www.discovery.com/.../climate-change-by-the-numbers-600000-deaths-annually/
This one claims 600,000

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-per-year-die-from-climate-change
This is from "Kofi Annan's think tank" .

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030
This one says 4.5 million per year and 100 million total by 2030

I could go on and on, but "google it yourself"
https://newrepublic.com/.../map-climate-change-kills-more-people-worldwide-terroris This one claims 400,000 per year

www.discovery.com/.../climate-change-by-the-numbers-600000-deaths-annually/
This one claims 600,000

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-per-year-die-from-climate-change
This is from "Kofi Annan's think tank" .

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/27/report-100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030
This one says 4.5 million per year and 100 million total by 2030

I could go on and on, but "google it yourself"

So no actual scientist, then?
26-01-2017 00:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you start trying to use weather as the basis for your counterarguments you will quickly be dismissed with a "talk to the hand, Climate is not weather" followed with the obligatory insult to your intelligence "how are you so stupid that you don't know Climate from weather?"


This is the part that just hacks me off. How can climate not be weather? Climate is by definition the historical average of weather. So if you want to talk global climate change then it is only makes sense to talk GLOBAL weather. But the rot gut that that is spewed by the likes of CNN should be criminal when they blame LOCAL events on GLOBAL warming.

Thanks for the info, I'll do some learning later tonight.

You may wish to be wary about taking advice on science from someone who spent a 300-post thread doggedly insisting that Greenland is gaining ice at a rate that would require Amazonian levels of precipitation (and no melting or glacier flow), all based on his misunderstanding of a relatively simple scientific paper.
26-01-2017 00:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
spot wrote:
Or they might of got the name from the book, that is my guess

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7937744-surface-detail

If your interested my name is meaningless.

Well spotted. A book by my favourite author that happened to be lying on my desk when I registered here.
26-01-2017 00:37
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Oh, you want scientist liars? OK, sorry. I'll do some more legwork for you. Google can be tough to navigate.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate A slightly different angle:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact