Remember me
▼ Content

Do We even want solve climate change?



Page 3 of 3<123
06-10-2017 10:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Do you have evidence that suggests that the overall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php


Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things.

As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth.

http://retractionwatch.com/


Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise.


The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up.


That does not cause the air to rise. There are many causes of rising air. What you are describing isn't even how the jet stream works.


In order for the air to rise it has to be more boyant than the air that is replacing it at the low level.

This is exactly what causes the air to rise. Colder air moving in at the bottom of the system. Without that there would be no boyancy of the warm air.

Edited on 06-10-2017 10:33
06-10-2017 10:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Do you have evidence that suggests that the overall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php


Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things.

As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth.

http://retractionwatch.com/


Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise.


The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up.


This has to do with storms and is from the link I posted a couple of days ago;

During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php


There is this as well in the same link;
Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 (111 to 130 mph) wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s.[/quote]

To what degree do you think more accuracte measuring of weather has contributed to the greater detection of such extremes?

Is it reasonable to use the data for the contigious USA to justify this given that this zone has in fact not seen any temperature increase?

Edited on 06-10-2017 10:33
06-10-2017 10:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure.


Yep.

The CAGW crowd will tell of a ravenous beast that killls and eats anything that moves, that eats more than it's own body weight of meat a day and is one of the most aggressive preditors that evolution has ever produced. With teeth that grow back continiously etc etc.

Run, run! Here comes the shrew.
06-10-2017 17:21
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state.

While "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" is cold in Iowa(it mentions this several times), heat, above 10degC normal, was on the Greenland Ice Sheet & moved over to north of Alaska, extending into Canada, & with present over-temperatures on the High Arctic for ~ 55 days.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" continues as an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
Thanks to "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" for highlighting & updating present AGW.
Edited on 06-10-2017 17:26
06-10-2017 18:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Do you have evidence that suggests that the overall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php


Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things.

As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth.

http://retractionwatch.com/


Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise.


The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up.


That does not cause the air to rise. There are many causes of rising air. What you are describing isn't even how the jet stream works.


In order for the air to rise it has to be more boyant than the air that is replacing it at the low level.

This is exactly what causes the air to rise. Colder air moving in at the bottom of the system. Without that there would be no boyancy of the warm air.


We can't seem to make these people understand that hurricanes are in fact a large heat losing mechanism. This is causing major cooling in the Caribbean which in turn causes major cooling over the entire eastern US.

When do you suppose they start crying about man-made global cooling?
06-10-2017 19:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:....hurricanes are in fact a large heat losing mechanism.

Like equatorial rising air currents & north-south moving ocean currents away from the equator, hurricanes & cyclones help transfer equatorial heat from the tropics to northern-southern climates. If equatorial doldrums were continuous, equatorial energy would make the tropics unliveable.
Meanwhile:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" continues as an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
06-10-2017 21:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
From the 2 people who say the climate doesn't change. Why does that not surprise me ? Are you 2 losing it ? You used to have some good insults and faulty logic that sounded good. I think the only people impressed by such poor attempts is the 2 of you impressing each other.
All you 2 have now are your circular arguments that you think someone is silly. I mean you 2 macho libres are smoking hot when you say things like if he even learned simple chemistry but you 2 know that when the 2 of you hook up that synergy starts getting electric and the charge you 2 have for each other allows for you both to share a special chemistry that only the 2 of you can appreciate.
Damn this is better than sex watching you 2 hunks get hot and heavy with each other !!! Encore, ENCORE I want to see MORE !!!!
How bout some pics ? Please pretty please you 2 hot guys. Show everyone what you guys got !!!


Lie #1 - no one said that the climate doesn't change.

I say there is no such thing as a global 'climate' to 'change'. It is simply their way of describing global 'warming' using another buzzword. It is the Church of Global Warming trying to change it's name because people aren't believing the religion anymore.
Wake wrote:
We just said that man hasn't any control over it on any scale larger than that surrounding a city.

We really don't have any control over it even in a city.
Wake wrote:
Lie #2 - We're using faulty logic when you are the one claiming that CO2 affects the levels of Ozone.

Logic isn't here. This is a chemistry problem, not a logic one. He never learned chemistry.
Wake wrote:
Lie #3 - That because two people make a comment about your debilities they are together ganging up on you.

He DOES seem to be one of the extra paranoid varieties of the Faithful.
Wake wrote:
The problem with you is that you are hugging and kissing greenman and his belief that the human race is going to kill itself and ignoring the fact that there has never been less hunger, lower diseases, more medical attention and fewer lunatics like you allowed to run free.

Not lunatic...illiterate instead. The rest is accurate.


It's kind of sad that you can't accept that our planet has a climate

There is no such thing as a global 'climate'. There is no such thing as a global 'weather'.
James_ wrote:
and that it changes.

How can something that doesn't exist change? Are you trying to describe global average temperature as 'climate'?
James_ wrote:
From what you've posted your prefer psychology

Logic is not psychology. Neither is math. Neither is science.
James_ wrote:
and with that nothing changes unless a person changes their mind.
And with you, you can't accept change can you ?


There are new theories in science all the time. Others get destroyed. Happens all the time. Math is a closed system. Logic is a closed system. They don't change unless we change the axioms defining those systems.

You don't seem to understand what 'change' is. You seem to think that climate is the only thing that can 'change'.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2017 21:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
From the 2 people who say the climate doesn't change. Why does that not surprise me ? Are you 2 losing it ? You used to have some good insults and faulty logic that sounded good. I think the only people impressed by such poor attempts is the 2 of you impressing each other.
All you 2 have now are your circular arguments that you think someone is silly. I mean you 2 macho libres are smoking hot when you say things like if he even learned simple chemistry but you 2 know that when the 2 of you hook up that synergy starts getting electric and the charge you 2 have for each other allows for you both to share a special chemistry that only the 2 of you can appreciate.
Damn this is better than sex watching you 2 hunks get hot and heavy with each other !!! Encore, ENCORE I want to see MORE !!!!
How bout some pics ? Please pretty please you 2 hot guys. Show everyone what you guys got !!!


Lie #1 - no one said that the climate doesn't change. We just said that man hasn't any control over it on any scale larger than that surrounding a city.

Lie #2 - We're using faulty logic when you are the one claiming that CO2 affects the levels of Ozone.

Lie #3 - That because two people make a comment about your debilities they are together ganging up on you.

The problem with you is that you are hugging and kissing greenman and his belief that the human race is going to kill itself and ignoring the fact that there has never been less hunger, lower diseases, more medical attention and fewer lunatics like you allowed to run free.


It's in the 2013 IPCC report.

So, you BELIEVE in the IPCC as the source of your religion.

The IPCC is propaganda, dude.
James_ wrote:
It is an observation that scientists have made.

There was no observation made by the IPCC or by anyone mentioned in their report.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation. There is observation, or there is not. Science is not observation. Observation is not part of science. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology. It is questionable evidence only.
James_ wrote:
Why do you ignore such observations for ?

Because it wasn't an observation. It is propaganda pushed by the IPCC. They just make shit up.
James_ wrote:
For me it is an opportunity to demonstrate that I know something.

All you are demonstrating is that you can't tell the difference between religion and science, and that you will believe anyone tells you if they have the letters 'IPCC', 'NOAA', or 'NASA' attached to what they say.

At least in magic shows they TELL you they are lying to you.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2017 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Do you have evidence that suggests that the overall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php


Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things.

As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth.

http://retractionwatch.com/


Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise.


The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up.


That does not cause the air to rise. There are many causes of rising air. What you are describing isn't even how the jet stream works.


In order for the air to rise it has to be more boyant than the air that is replacing it at the low level.

This is exactly what causes the air to rise. Colder air moving in at the bottom of the system. Without that there would be no boyancy of the warm air.

Not quite true. Air can rise because it's forced up by wind hitting a mountain. It can rise for the thermal reasons you describe here (localized warming). It can rise because cold air moving in essentially throws warm aloft (a cold front). It can rise because warm air is advancing over the top of colder air beneath it (a warm front). It can rise because it gets sucked in from already rising air. It can rise because of a static front against colder air, with warmer air feeding the bottom (like the jet stream).

There are all kinds of ways that air begins to rise. If the air is unstable, once it begins rising, it will continue to rise faster until it reaches a point of stability (such as the stratosphere).


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2017 21:36
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Do you have evidence that suggests that the overall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php


Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things.

As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth.

http://retractionwatch.com/


Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise.


The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up.


That does not cause the air to rise. There are many causes of rising air. What you are describing isn't even how the jet stream works.


In order for the air to rise it has to be more boyant than the air that is replacing it at the low level.

This is exactly what causes the air to rise. Colder air moving in at the bottom of the system. Without that there would be no boyancy of the warm air.

Not quite true. Air can rise because it's forced up by wind hitting a mountain. It can rise for the thermal reasons you describe here (localized warming). It can rise because cold air moving in essentially throws warm aloft (a cold front). It can rise because warm air is advancing over the top of colder air beneath it (a warm front). It can rise because it gets sucked in from already rising air. It can rise because of a static front against colder air, with warmer air feeding the bottom (like the jet stream).

There are all kinds of ways that air begins to rise. If the air is unstable, once it begins rising, it will continue to rise faster until it reaches a point of stability (such as the stratosphere).


All true, and the colder the air in relation to the unstable air, the steeper the lapse rate and typically the more explosive (severe) the storm. So how does one blame warming for storm strength of the storm? It takes COLD AIR to condense water out of humid air. Basic air conditioning concepts.
07-10-2017 12:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

Do you have evidence that suggests that the overall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php


Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things.

As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth.

http://retractionwatch.com/


Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise.


The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up.


That does not cause the air to rise. There are many causes of rising air. What you are describing isn't even how the jet stream works.


In order for the air to rise it has to be more boyant than the air that is replacing it at the low level.

This is exactly what causes the air to rise. Colder air moving in at the bottom of the system. Without that there would be no boyancy of the warm air.

Not quite true. Air can rise because it's forced up by wind hitting a mountain. It can rise for the thermal reasons you describe here (localized warming). It can rise because cold air moving in essentially throws warm aloft (a cold front). It can rise because warm air is advancing over the top of colder air beneath it (a warm front). It can rise because it gets sucked in from already rising air. It can rise because of a static front against colder air, with warmer air feeding the bottom (like the jet stream).

There are all kinds of ways that air begins to rise. If the air is unstable, once it begins rising, it will continue to rise faster until it reaches a point of stability (such as the stratosphere).


All true, and the colder the air in relation to the unstable air, the steeper the lapse rate and typically the more explosive (severe) the storm. So how does one blame warming for storm strength of the storm? It takes COLD AIR to condense water out of humid air. Basic air conditioning concepts.


It does not atake cold air to condense water out of warm air.

The warm moist air cools, generally by losing pressure as it rises. This results in the dew point (the temperature at which the water in the air condenses out) being reached. Thus clouds form.

Other than being blown over a mountain, there is always the need for air to be pushed up by other air for air to rise. Without such boyancy gravity wins. Warm fronts and cold fronts are bothe examples of this.
07-10-2017 18:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1526)
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:

Do you have evidence that suggests that the overall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php


Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things.

As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth.

http://retractionwatch.com/


Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise.


The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up.


That does not cause the air to rise. There are many causes of rising air. What you are describing isn't even how the jet stream works.


In order for the air to rise it has to be more boyant than the air that is replacing it at the low level.

This is exactly what causes the air to rise. Colder air moving in at the bottom of the system. Without that there would be no boyancy of the warm air.

Not quite true. Air can rise because it's forced up by wind hitting a mountain. It can rise for the thermal reasons you describe here (localized warming). It can rise because cold air moving in essentially throws warm aloft (a cold front). It can rise because warm air is advancing over the top of colder air beneath it (a warm front). It can rise because it gets sucked in from already rising air. It can rise because of a static front against colder air, with warmer air feeding the bottom (like the jet stream).

There are all kinds of ways that air begins to rise. If the air is unstable, once it begins rising, it will continue to rise faster until it reaches a point of stability (such as the stratosphere).


All true, and the colder the air in relation to the unstable air, the steeper the lapse rate and typically the more explosive (severe) the storm. So how does one blame warming for storm strength of the storm? It takes COLD AIR to condense water out of humid air. Basic air conditioning concepts.


Tim the Plumber wrote;
It does not atake cold air to condense water out of warm air.

True, but I was talking in relation to severe storms

The warm moist air cools, generally by losing pressure as it rises. This results in the dew point (the temperature at which the water in the air condenses out) being reached. Thus clouds form.

True
Other than being blown over a mountain, there is always the need for air to be pushed up by other air for air to rise.

Simple cold air moving in aloft (cap erosion) can send warm moist air shooting upward. It doesn't have to be "pushed". If the jet stream is overhead you'll have a long live well vented storm.

Without such boyancy gravity wins. Warm fronts and cold fronts are bothe examples of this.

Some of the most violent storms form on a simple dry line, typically in the Texas/Oklahoma panhandle regions. Don't even need a cold or warm front to realize extreme bouncy. Just need to send than moist air up into the cold air, and some jet support helps a lot.
07-10-2017 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
Tim the plumber wrote:
It does not atake cold air to condense water out of warm air.

The warm moist air cools, generally by losing pressure as it rises. This results in the dew point (the temperature at which the water in the air condenses out) being reached. Thus clouds form.

Other than being blown over a mountain, there is always the need for air to be pushed up by other air for air to rise. Without such boyancy gravity wins. Warm fronts and cold fronts are bothe examples of this.


You just described how it takes colder air to condense water out of warmer air.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate Do We even want solve climate change?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Technology will solve problem with carbon capture826-11-2019 20:48
Overpopulation - How not to solve the problem.12103-11-2015 06:04
Overpopulation - How to solve the problem..?3501-11-2015 17:22
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact