Commander of Awesome;1658857 wrote:Funny comment, but its going up. Have you been paying attention?

That's what they think, currently. Not that long ago they thought it was going down. Their data has been faulty or unreliable and the models forming the basis of their conclusions much, much worse - one doesn't even have to understand statistics and the scientific method to see that obvious fact.

If they practiced medicine instead of climatology they'd be considered quacks.

Commander of Awesome;1659086 wrote:So you don't like their findings? Can't dispute scientific facts.

I simply must comment on the gif (though I won't speak to the topic, as I'm not as well-read on climate change).

"Science" isn't something that can be "true." Perhaps he means "facts validated, supported, confirmed, etc. by science." For a person who makes his living based on an implication of accuracy, he might carry some of that accuracy into his communication. Such a statement would certainly not pass ANY peer review.

"Science" is a term for the study of the natural world. The study of something ... anything ... isn't the sort of thing that can be true, because it isn't, itself, a fact claim. It's an object.

From there, you can suggest that by "true," he meant "real." But again, nobody is debating whether or not science, the study of the natural world, exists.

Watched the mini ice age last night on the History channel. It discussed Europe and North America during that time and after it was over they started interviewing experts on the climate and I thought here we go man made, world going to end and I was surprised. The history channel actually have several different people with several different views and they all agreed that the science of studying what will happen is no where near perfect. One side claimed the world will heat up, land will shrivel and water supplies dwindle and fighting for resources will come about, oceans will rise and so on. The other side argued that the North Atlantic ocean cycle will slow down from too much fresh water and another ice age will set in leading to world unrest. Another group from the pentagon shared their contingency plans on either scenario and how the world might play out.

In the end you just got the feeling that they werent sure what was going to happen, but they all agreed that the climate will dramatically shift one way or another and that man has a hand in it, but none agreed to what degree and could anything be done about it! lol

redstreak one;1659230 wrote:One side claimed the world will heat up, land will shrivel and water supplies dwindle and fighting for resources will come about, oceans will rise and so on. The other side argued that the North Atlantic ocean cycle will slow down from too much fresh water and another ice age will set in leading to world unrest.

That's interesting. The Atlantic slowing down and leading to a another ice age seems, maybe, pretty intuitive (assume the Earth has some sort of cycle and a way to naturally reverse extremes)...although I'm not sure why too much fresh water would slow things down - sure there's a theory somewhere that likely isn't overly scientifically compelling.

An ice age would be far, far worse than dealing with a few degress of warming and a couple feet higher seas. As far as resources, we are already capable of desalinizing water and irrigating arid crop land. And air conditioning. We are quite capable of adapting to a warmer climate. An ice age is much more problematic.

gut;1659236 wrote:That's interesting. The Atlantic slowing down and leading to a another ice age seems, maybe, pretty intuitive (assume the Earth has some sort of cycle and a way to naturally reverse extremes)...although I'm not sure why too much fresh water would slow things down - sure there's a theory somewhere that likely isn't overly scientifically compelling.

An ice age would be far, far worse than dealing with a few degress of warming and a couple feet higher seas. As far as resources, we are already capable of desalinizing water and irrigating arid crop land. And air conditioning. We are quite capable of adapting to a warmer climate. An ice age is much more problematic.

Salt helps keep the oceans warmer and because of it's density helps circulate the water. I don't think that much would melt to make an impact however

Classyposter58;1659486 wrote:Salt helps keep the oceans warmer and because of it's density helps circulate the water. I don't think that much would melt to make an impact however

Does it keep the water warmer, or does is just lower the freezing temperature? I'm not sure salt affects the capacity of water to cool or warm, just increases the boiling point and lowers the freezing point.

It's denser, but could would that fresh water significantly change the density (consider a several feet rise in ocean levels vs. the total average depth of the ocean). But density might be the answer, although how quickly and how much would the additional fresh water mix - the process of melting caps is still occurring over decades or longer.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder



BOOM

Find this on oldnews.com?

http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context-environment/john_coleman/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam

He has no scientific credentials to back up his claim. Hardly a "Boom". lolfail

(also for added lulz: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/11/08/17479/coleman-weather/ ) Do some reasearch before trumpeting junk articles by junk "news" organizations. )

also, Although Coleman still refers to The Weather Channel as his “baby,” he recognizes that he’s no longer welcome there: “The bad guys took it away from me, but they can’t steal the fact that it was my idea and I started it and ran it for the first year.”

lolbutthurt party of 1

Commander of Awesome;1665909 wrote:Find this on oldnews.com?

http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context-environment/john_coleman/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam

He has no scientific credentials to back up his claim. Hardly a "Boom". lolfail

(also for added lulz: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/11/08/17479/coleman-weather/ ) Do some reasearch before trumpeting junk articles by junk "news" organizations. )

gut;1659507 wrote:Does it keep the water warmer, or does is just lower the freezing temperature? I'm not sure salt affects the capacity of water to cool or warm, just increases the boiling point and lowers the freezing point.

It's denser, but could would that fresh water significantly change the density (consider a several feet rise in ocean levels vs. the total average depth of the ocean). But density might be the answer, although how quickly and how much would the additional fresh water mix - the process of melting caps is still occurring over decades or longer.

I know for melting ice what the salt does is lowers the freezing temperature and that helps melt ice to a certain point.

Commander of Awesome;1665909 wrote:Find this on oldnews.com?

http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context-environment/john_coleman/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam

He has no scientific credentials to back up his claim. Hardly a "Boom". lolfail

(also for added lulz: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/11/08/17479/coleman-weather/ ) Do some reasearch before trumpeting junk articles by junk "news" organizations. )

He has plenty of credentials, but more importantly he has the facts on his side. And had you read the article you might have noticed this as well:

"Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman's claims.
He added: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.
"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."

The same William Happer who compared CO2 to jews? The guy who is a physics professor, not a climate expert? lol yeah no thanks.

"This is George Orwell. This is the 'Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.' It's that kind of propaganda….Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant….To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult."

http://io9.com/climate-change-denying-physicist-compares-carbon-dioxid-1607297863


Just search his name in google for God's Sake and you'll see he's a raving lunatic.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/even-princeton-makes-mistakes.html

lolfail, you guys are really something else. I feel like I'm arguing with a 3 yr old.

Commander of Awesome;1666071 wrote:The same William Happer who compared CO2 to jews? lol yeah no thanks.

"This is George Orwell. This is the 'Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.' It's that kind of propaganda….Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant….To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult."

http://io9.com/climate-change-denying-physicist-compares-carbon-dioxid-1607297863


Just search his name in google for God's Sake and you'll see he's a raving lunatic.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/even-princeton-makes-mistakes.html

lolfail, you guys are really something else. I feel like I'm arguing with a 3 yr old.

If you're arguing with QQuaker, that's an insult to the cognitive abilities of even a dull 3 year old.

Isn't carbon dioxide vital for photosynthesis? Why would it be considered a pollutant? Is it a "too much of a good thing" issue?

O-Trap;1666084 wrote:Isn't carbon dioxide vital for photosynthesis? Why would it be considered a pollutant? Is it a "too much of a good thing" issue?

You got it. Too much CO2 and we turn into Venus.

Commander of Awesome;1666085 wrote:You got it. Too much CO2 and we turn into Venus.

Fair enough. I was always curious about this, even back in the early '90s when the Saturday Morning Cartoons would show commercials about CO2 levels.

Commander of Awesome;1666071 wrote:The same William Happer who compared CO2 to jews? The guy who is a physics professor, not a climate expert? lol yeah no thanks.

"This is George Orwell. This is the 'Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.' It's that kind of propaganda….Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant….To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult."

http://io9.com/climate-change-denying-physicist-compares-carbon-dioxid-1607297863


Just search his name in google for God's Sake and you'll see he's a raving lunatic.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/even-princeton-makes-mistakes.html

lolfail, you guys are really something else. I feel like I'm arguing with a 3 yr old.

Please, continue worshiping at the altar of Al Gore, if it makes you feel good.

Commander of Awesome;1666085 wrote:You got it. Too much CO2 and we turn into Venus.

Except for the numerous periods in the planet's history where that's not the case.

fish82;1666133 wrote:Except for the numerous periods in the planet's history where that's not the case.

You're just a denier.


:laugh:

Snow on the ground in Lexington. Fuck global warming

GOONx19;1669517 wrote:Snow on the ground in Lexington. Fuck global warming

If you're in Lexington ky, snow is the least of your problems. [emoji4]

It snowed in Columbia, sc this morning and is about 40 on the coast. Fffff this. Al Gore needs punched in the throat.


"Get busy livin, or get busy dyin"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html


BINGO!

QuakerOats;1706348 wrote:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html


BINGO!

Author Thomas Lifson

Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher, calls himself a recovering academic. After graduating from Kenyon College, he studied modern Japan, sociology, and business as a graduate student at Harvard.


Umm. NOTHING remotely scientific in his background. What gives him grounds to speak about the matter? Where's his expertise?