Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Desertdog on December 14, 2010, 12:18:10 PM
-
More trouble for the GW crowd. Maybe in a year or two they will start saying we need to do something to stop the Global Cooling, like they did in the 70s.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1213/Snow-storm-snarls-Midwest-Is-US-facing-another-extreme-winter
I'll take Global Warming any day to Global Cooling.
-
What's the problem? I mean, aside from the famine, starvation, and mass extinctions, another ice age would be AWESOME!
-
famine, starvation, and mass extinctions
And what's the downside ???
>:D
-
And what's the downside ???
>:D
Your beloved Montana might be under a mile of ice.
-
Your beloved Montana might be under a mile of ice.
Then I probably won't be here to worry about it
-
Your beloved Montana might be under a mile of ice.
And the difference would be what? ;)
-
they will start saying we need to do something to stop the Global Cooling, like they did in the 70s.
Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.
-
Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.
It's indeed time the Warmists realized that.
-
There are a few places to poke at 'warmists', but 'deniers' don't help themselves by going over the same old talking points.
Quite enjoyed this earlier, good dig at both sides - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk&feature=player_embedded
- significantly stronger perhaps at the 'warmists' expense.
Facile comparison by the way, if you're comparing a body of scientific evidence (which you may happen to disagree with) and a statement that implies that anything more than a few, largely fluff, pieces appeared in the 70s predicting another ice age. There were after all papers appearing in the 70s making predictions of the degree of warming that would result from rising CO2 levels.
-
Its just so much fun ( poking fun at warmism ) the folks I've met are just completely clueless about the debate itself. Most have no idea what "AGW" means for instance. They also cant tell me how did the last ice age end
( they also do not know there has been more than one ) or how long ago it was. Also for a half cracked discussion on global warming they need to know the difference between hemispheres and at least the names of the continents. Its not like they're a lot of them hence you can get away with out knowing all of them.
The warmist folks I met in SF and in general have not the slightest clue of basic elementary school science, so easy to make fun of I cant help myself
-
GS - you don't want to see the level of debate I've experienced on another forum. There are plenty of 'warmists' who don't know one end of the Keeling Curve from another, there are plenty of 'deniers' who won't grasp the difference between weather and climate.
I may be biased, but the most wilful ignorance I have seen has come from 'deniers'. Repeated demonstrably inaccurate claims, such as the one made in this thread coming from the same people over and over again. You'd only need to look at the posting history of Matt Drudge's environmental correspondent to see the same conflation of weather and climate, over and over again, repeated threads talking about a bit of cold weather somewhere and linking it to global warming.
Try this for example:
In the LA area they had the hotest record since they have kept temp records, 113 degrees F, and then they went to 15 to 25 degrees below normal. So which was it, record heat or record cold? How about both, one after the other. Which prevailed, record cold or record heat? The 113 degrees was maybe 5 degrees above normal, but the cold was 15 to 25 degrees below normal, which to me it was a cooling trend.
Attempting (badly) to pull trends out of a couple of recent records for one specific area. At least when 'warmists' go on about records they generally talk about years and global averages, which by the way apparently presently have 2010 as beating 1998, which may put a stop to that particular talking point.
-
"Deniers". <snork>...that term sure settles the argument for me. ;/
-
Iain. Everybody conflates weather and climate.
Remember this? (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html)
-
Meh, I don't take the warmers seriously as scientists anymore. Heck, by their own admission, they don't even have the raw collected data anymore.
Let them come to my world of modeling & simulation, with my level of rigor where 10-15 thousand hourly weather reports from several weather stations over 50-100Km along one river valley (just for the months of June-August) is considered a good start .
Much preferred is several years' worth of weather reports at 15 minute intervals. That's the point where one can model the atmo and use it as quality input for other physics-based engineering-level models and expect the outcome of the models to match reality close enough to have some confidence.
The quantity and quality of data those jokers were using rendered their modeling worthless, even assuming their model closely matched reality.
Back when I just jockeyed heavy-duty stochastic models, I thought the warmer modelers were sloppy and unethical. Heck, I had to show my homework: inputs, assumptions, limitations...it was all there for the consumers of the data to throw rocks at. Not to mention that the models I used had to be V&A'd by a third party (Verification, Validation, & Accreditation) Here's a taste of that https://nmso.navy.mil/VerificationValidationAccreditation/tabid/58/Default.aspx)*. Examining the source code is just one of the first in a series of steps in that process.
After having done some atmo modeling, I held them in utter contempt.
Now, seeing their homework in the leaked Climategate documents, I can not find the words to plumb the depth of my disdain for them. The "scientists" who were involved are lower than the dog *expletive deleted*it I scrape off the bottom of my shoe. Horsefly maggots have more value. Dime whores have more integrity.
* Quick & dirty definitions:
The formal definitions of VV&A are:
(1) Verification is the process of determining that a model or simulation implementation accurately represents the developer’s conceptual description and specifications.
(2) Validation is the process of determining the degree to which the model or simulation is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses.
(3)Accreditation is an official determination that a model or simulation is acceptable to use for a specific purpose.
(from http://www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/5000-5999/CI_5200_40.pdf)
After reading the leaked Climategate docs, does anyone think anything remotely like the above occurred?
-
So how many years of weather does it take to make climate...?
-
Iain,
I sat through several years of science class in Middle and High Screwl (mid -70's to early 80's) being told that: OMG!!!! The Erf is gonna freeze, we'll be all out of oil, and mastodons will feast on our bones.
I will state again:
Does the earth's climate change: Yep, you betcha.
Do we have anything to do with it: Not in the least.
-
So how many years of weather does it take to make climate...?
More than either side of the issue wants to use. Get back to me in 300,000 years, when all this back and forth on snow storms and heat waves is relegated to statistical noise, and the hills behind the house where I grew up, where I collected sea shell fossils, are back underwater again (or else there's a ton more beach-front property).
-
Iain,
I sat through several years of science class in Middle and High Screwl (mid -70's to early 80's) being told that: OMG!!!! The Erf is gonna freeze, we'll be all out of oil, and mastodons will feast on our bones.
I will state again:
Does the earth's climate change: Yep, you betcha.
Do we have anything to do with it: Not in the least.
silly man you/i need only to realize how much smarter the young folks are today :facepalm:
so unlike we were for we never thought we were so much smarter than the old timers back then >:D
-
Relevant solution is relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering
-
I may be biased, but the most wilful ignorance I have seen has come from 'deniers'. Repeated demonstrably inaccurate claims, such as the one made in this thread coming from the same people over and over again. You'd only need to look at the posting history of Matt Drudge's environmental correspondent to see the same conflation of weather and climate, over and over again, repeated threads talking about a bit of cold weather somewhere and linking it to global warming.
Didn't Al Gore claim Hurricane Katrina was due to global warming? And that we - the USA - would suffer many more catastrophic hurricanes in the immediate future? (Don't discount Al Gore as a legitimate global warming theory spokesperson or advocate - after all, HE won a Nobel Prize for his climate crusade.)
As for LA having hot spells and cold spells . . . I'd like to see what the temperature trend over the past century or two is after factoring in and correcting for the urban heat island effect.
-
As for LA having hot spells and cold spells . . . I'd like to see what the temperature trend over the past century or two is after factoring in and correcting for the urban heat island effect.
heretic!! get thee behind me!
and theres no money in that research
-
Mastodons are vegetarians.
-
Mastodons are vegetarians.
research? or memory?
-
research? or memory?
You think walking uphill both ways to school is hard - try doing it during an ice age.
-
yea horses hadn't evolved yet?
-
I've seen some ignorance on both sides of this issue, but it gets tiresome when global warming/climate change advocates go on about it as if it invalidates the entire debate. Trying to claim that there are people that deny "climate change" is ridiculous as well. Hell, my grandfather once told me he thought weather trends moved in at least 20 year cycles, and that was just his observations after living more than 60 years. Everyone knows climates shift around.
The simple fact is that the actual evidence of man-made global warming is weak or non-existent and all the predictions that have been made by scientists and supporters alike have not happened so far. IMO, it has gotten to the point that most of the researchers are just trying to keep the grant money rolling in and don't care a bit about whether or not it is a real issue.
-
keep the grant money rolling in
-
Mastodons are vegetarians.
The Kentucky Coffee Tree is guessed to be one of their favorite foods.
http://darwiniana.org/ghostsof.htm
-
Average annual global temperatures have risen a degree or two since the Little Ice Age ended some 150 years ago
http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/1709
-
Mastodons are vegetarians.
They won't be when there's large piles of Soylent Green all over the ice.....
-
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
Ummm, Ian, you may want to look out your window now. =D
This child of the '70s remembers the winters then, running from the short faced bears, riding the wooly rhinos to school and, of course, Mastadon sandwhiches. Mmmm, Ice Ages.
-
yea horses hadn't evolved yet?
yeah hard to ride those knee high things
-
http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=4192
This was posted in the thread about college degrees.
For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.
In the 80's my elementary school weekly readers were full of "save the whales", "save the rain forest", and "global warming". The lefties have been pushing global warming along with other things for many many years. They always made very wild claims that often turned out to be completely untrue (if the rain forest destruction rate was what they said it was, it would be gone now). The issues are not always things to be dismissed out of hand. I like whales and don't have an issue with banning whale hunting. However, global warming has been a leftist issue tied to politics for a long, long time pretty much since the idea was invented. For AGW supporters to claim they are just defending "science" now is just plain dishonest. IMO, ANY scientific issue that is injected with politics is something to be highly skeptical about.