Where is global warming?

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by loco145 (10831 posts) -

"Record snowfall & freezing temps throughout the country. Where is Global Warming when you need it?!"

#2 Posted by Brain_Duster (473 posts) -

In my pants.

#3 Posted by chaplainDMK (6896 posts) -

@loco145:

Europe, we're about 5-10 degrees above the seasonal average now.

#4 Edited by deeliman (3445 posts) -

Not sure if you're mocking people who use that stupid argument, or that you're one of the people who make that argument.

#5 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7877 posts) -

@deeliman said:

Not sure if you're mocking people who use that stupid argument, or that you're one of the people who make that argument.

He's one of them.

#6 Posted by deeliman (3445 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@deeliman said:

Not sure if you're mocking people who use that stupid argument, or that you're one of the people who make that argument.

He's one of them.

Isn't he also the guy that's salty about not being able to go to college?

#7 Posted by Master_Live (15664 posts) -

It is in our hearts.

#8 Posted by comp_atkins (31923 posts) -

#9 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

where is kc_hokie

#10 Posted by Overlord93 (12602 posts) -

It's just taking a short break, please buy more of our overpriced lightbulbs.

#11 Posted by Nengo_Flow (10396 posts) -

you dont know how global warming works, do you?

I'll give you a hint, global warming causes Ice Ages...

#12 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

Don't you know? Global warming is in the arctic pushing all the cold air down to the states...........

#13 Posted by Flubbbs (3508 posts) -

its called climate change now... so know matter what happens they can still say it was man made

#14 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

how many alarmist ships are stuck in Antarctic ice expansion in the summer? its at least 3 ATM including at least one "icebreaker"

#15 Posted by BossPerson (9117 posts) -

nah, pumping millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere does nothing

#16 Edited by darkmark91 (2912 posts) -

'll leave this vid here fir you guys to discus about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM&list=HL1389246536

#17 Edited by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

@darkmark91 said:

'll leave this vid here fir you guys to discus about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM&list=HL1389246536

The planets been through a lot worse than us. We haven't been around for those things though and chances are if more stuff worse than us happens we won't be here too long after that. So yeah we don't quite have the capability to ruin the planet as much as some cosmic shit does. We're getting really close though and we have to remember its not what kills the planet that matters: Its what kills us. The planet kind of stops mattering when life is gone, its just another rock at that point.

We dwarf volcanos in co2 emissions. Think about that. Those giant fucking exploding mountains? We put out 135 times as much co2 as them. Every year. We aren't too arrogant. We're too modest.

#18 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (17273 posts) -

@loco145 said:

"Record snowfall & freezing temps throughout the country. Where is Global Warming when you need it?!"

Probably in Alaska. Anchorage is currently at 28F which is kinda warm over there for this time of the year. In the meantime, we're at single digits (Upstate NY) and have seen more subzero weather this winter than the previous five winters combined.

Heck. Juneau, Alaska is at 35F.

#19 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (4511 posts) -

Cold air got blown down from the arctic. It's created strange weather paterns over the U.S.

doesn't really have anything to do with global warming.

#20 Edited by jimkabrhel (15424 posts) -

OT is certainly not a place to have a legitimate, scientific discussion. KC_Hokie would be proud of this thread.

#21 Edited by GazaAli (23583 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@deeliman said:

Not sure if you're mocking people who use that stupid argument, or that you're one of the people who make that argument.

He's one of them.

oh the agony...

#22 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7877 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

how many alarmist ships are stuck in Antarctic ice expansion in the summer? its at least 3 ATM including at least one "icebreaker"

Ships have been stuck in ice, therefore global warming is a hoax. Brilliant logic Batman!

#23 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

#24 Edited by dave123321 (34361 posts) -

Be ashamed OT

#25 Edited by EnoshimaJunko (317 posts) -

Where is global warming? Down the hall, 3rd door on the left.

#26 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan: when there is a working model, for or against the MS line, give me a call. if your thesis is never accurate then your view is wrong. it is called taking account for ones position, it is how science is done. tests and theories must be recorded and compared. stupid wanna be scientific minds just gobble up whatever they are told without the requirement of accurate data. if things were as you assume they are, things would not be as they are, because not a single climatology model ever comes close to accurate, maybe it is because the 24 or so current models do not account for the sun.

i am a numbers guy, you are a grade A political bullshitter, our views are not made of the same stuff.

#27 Edited by lamprey263 (25257 posts) -

average global temperatures have been on the rise, but what accompanies global warming and climate change is extremes in both ends of the weather

#28 Edited by Jacobistheman (3975 posts) -

@BossPerson said:

nah, pumping millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere does nothing

Of all of the heat retained in our atmosphere, about 1/3 of it is a result of CO2 (.28% to be exact), nearly 99% of greenhouse effects come from water vapor in the atmosphere. There is a total of 368 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 12 of that came from Humans. that means that .009 of a percent of the total greenhouse effect comes from human made CO2. That isn't zero effect, but its pretty close.

#29 Edited by IronBeaver (1986 posts) -

@Jacobistheman said:

@BossPerson said:

nah, pumping millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere does nothing

Of all of the heat retained in our atmosphere, about 1/3 of it is a result of CO2 (.28% to be exact), nearly 99% of greenhouse effects come from water vapor in the atmosphere. There is a total of 368 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 12 of that came from Humans. that means that .009 of a percent of the total greenhouse effect comes from human made CO2. That isn't zero effect, but its pretty close.

Yeah the CO2 is little, but it is really about how it drives climate, not overwhelms it. I like to think about the other 99% of whatever gasses in the atmosphere as a bulldozer. A bulldozer just sitting there isn't much of a threat now, is it? Now imagine you put Trevor Philips at the controls. Trevor Philips is the CO2.

I would direct anyone with climate change questions to this site. I have a bit of an environmental science background but I have also worked with environmental NGOs. This site does a good job at being able to refute the people who's wallets are threatened by anthropogenic warming. http://skepticalscience.com/


I saw a scientist on one of those talking heads shows the other night, when discussing how Faux News is saying this cold weather proves anthropogenic warming false say, "well whats happening right now is a phenomenon scientists call 'winter'." Seriously, just because the climate has been warming especially fast from man made activities since the dawn of the industrial age doesn't mean winter has stopped. Weather is ultimately chaotic, climate much less so.

And Australia is cooking right now.

#30 Edited by Jacobistheman (3975 posts) -

@IronBeaver said:

@Jacobistheman said:

@BossPerson said:

nah, pumping millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere does nothing

Of all of the heat retained in our atmosphere, about 1/3 of it is a result of CO2 (.28% to be exact), nearly 99% of greenhouse effects come from water vapor in the atmosphere. There is a total of 368 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 12 of that came from Humans. that means that .009 of a percent of the total greenhouse effect comes from human made CO2. That isn't zero effect, but its pretty close.

Yeah the CO2 is little, but it is really about how it drives climate, not overwhelms it. I like to think about the other 99% of whatever gasses in the atmosphere as a bulldozer. A bulldozer just sitting there isn't much of a threat now, is it? Now imagine you put Trevor Philips at the controls. Trevor Philips is the CO2.

I would direct anyone with climate change questions to this site. I have a bit of an environmental science background but I have also worked with environmental NGOs. This site does a good job at being able to refute the people who's wallets are threatened by anthropogenic warming. http://skepticalscience.com/

I saw a scientist on one of those talking heads shows the other night, when discussing how Faux News is saying this cold weather proves anthropogenic warming false say, "well whats happening right now is a phenomenon scientists call 'winter'." Seriously, just because the climate has been warming especially fast from man made activities since the dawn of the industrial age doesn't mean winter has stopped. Weather is ultimately chaotic, climate much less so.

And Australia is cooking right now.

You completely miss understood what I said (and the facts). It contributes .28% to greenhouse effect, meaning that .28% of heat trapped in the atmosphere is trapped by CO2. It isn't .28% of the atmosphere itself. CO2 makes up 0.0387% of the atmosphere.

Retaining .009% more heat in the atmosphere will not change the climate. The average temperature on earth is 278.15K. If there were no man-made CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature would be 287.13K (because it retains .00009 less heat). Man made CO2 contributes .025K or .025C/.047F degree change to the atmosphere.

The fact that you worked for an environmental NGO doesn't make you a credible source of information. The #1 priority of any organization (Governments, Businesses, NGOs, Non-Profits) is self preservation. In order for a Environmental NGO to survive, there must be environmental problems. They are also filled with people who tend to believe in Man made climate change. Those two things contribute to the fact that they severely overstate environmental problems--"their wallets are thretened by the lack of anthropogenic warming" you might say.

You can go on believing that anyone trying to argue with you is under the influence of "people whose wallets are threatened by anthropogenic warming", or you could look at the data and draw real conclusions. (Also, the earth is cooler on average than it was 150, 500, and 5000 years ago)

Last, you should post a link to an article that refutes what I said instead of some random website.

#31 Posted by deeliman (3445 posts) -

@Jacobistheman said:

@IronBeaver said:

@Jacobistheman said:

@BossPerson said:

nah, pumping millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere does nothing

Of all of the heat retained in our atmosphere, about 1/3 of it is a result of CO2 (.28% to be exact), nearly 99% of greenhouse effects come from water vapor in the atmosphere. There is a total of 368 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 12 of that came from Humans. that means that .009 of a percent of the total greenhouse effect comes from human made CO2. That isn't zero effect, but its pretty close.

Yeah the CO2 is little, but it is really about how it drives climate, not overwhelms it. I like to think about the other 99% of whatever gasses in the atmosphere as a bulldozer. A bulldozer just sitting there isn't much of a threat now, is it? Now imagine you put Trevor Philips at the controls. Trevor Philips is the CO2.

I would direct anyone with climate change questions to this site. I have a bit of an environmental science background but I have also worked with environmental NGOs. This site does a good job at being able to refute the people who's wallets are threatened by anthropogenic warming. http://skepticalscience.com/

I saw a scientist on one of those talking heads shows the other night, when discussing how Faux News is saying this cold weather proves anthropogenic warming false say, "well whats happening right now is a phenomenon scientists call 'winter'." Seriously, just because the climate has been warming especially fast from man made activities since the dawn of the industrial age doesn't mean winter has stopped. Weather is ultimately chaotic, climate much less so.

And Australia is cooking right now.

You completely miss understood what I said (and the facts). It contributes .28% to greenhouse effect, meaning that .28% of heat trapped in the atmosphere is trapped by CO2. It isn't .28% of the atmosphere itself. CO2 makes up 0.0387% of the atmosphere.

Retaining .009% more heat in the atmosphere will not change the climate. The average temperature on earth is 278.15K. If there were no man-made CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature would be 287.13K (because it retains .00009 less heat). Man made CO2 contributes .025K or .025C/.047F degree change to the atmosphere.

The fact that you worked for an environmental NGO doesn't make you a credible source of information. The #1 priority of any organization (Governments, Businesses, NGOs, Non-Profits) is self preservation. In order for a Environmental NGO to survive, there must be environmental problems. They are also filled with people who tend to believe in Man made climate change. Those two things contribute to the fact that they severely overstate environmental problems--"their wallets are thretened by the lack of anthropogenic warming" you might say.

You can go on believing that anyone trying to argue with you is under the influence of "people whose wallets are threatened by anthropogenic warming", or you could look at the data and draw real conclusions. (Also, the earth is cooler on average than it was 150, 500, and 5000 years ago)

Last, you should post a link to an article that refutes what I said instead of some random website.

And you completely misunderstand his point. You are right that there's a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, but water vapor by itself cannot cause global warming. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the temperature of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere isn't warming, you can emit as much water vapor as you want and it will just fall back to the ground as precipitation.

However, if something else is causing the atmosphere to warm, then it can hold more water vapor, and that increase in water vapor will cause further warming. For this reason water vapor is called a 'feedback'.

CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere and so can cause global warming. That's what he meant with his bulldozer analogy.

#32 Posted by IronBeaver (1986 posts) -

@Jacobistheman said:

@IronBeaver said:

@Jacobistheman said:

@BossPerson said:

nah, pumping millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere does nothing

Of all of the heat retained in our atmosphere, about 1/3 of it is a result of CO2 (.28% to be exact), nearly 99% of greenhouse effects come from water vapor in the atmosphere. There is a total of 368 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 12 of that came from Humans. that means that .009 of a percent of the total greenhouse effect comes from human made CO2. That isn't zero effect, but its pretty close.

Yeah the CO2 is little, but it is really about how it drives climate, not overwhelms it. I like to think about the other 99% of whatever gasses in the atmosphere as a bulldozer. A bulldozer just sitting there isn't much of a threat now, is it? Now imagine you put Trevor Philips at the controls. Trevor Philips is the CO2.

I would direct anyone with climate change questions to this site. I have a bit of an environmental science background but I have also worked with environmental NGOs. This site does a good job at being able to refute the people who's wallets are threatened by anthropogenic warming. http://skepticalscience.com/

I saw a scientist on one of those talking heads shows the other night, when discussing how Faux News is saying this cold weather proves anthropogenic warming false say, "well whats happening right now is a phenomenon scientists call 'winter'." Seriously, just because the climate has been warming especially fast from man made activities since the dawn of the industrial age doesn't mean winter has stopped. Weather is ultimately chaotic, climate much less so.

And Australia is cooking right now.

You completely miss understood what I said (and the facts). It contributes .28% to greenhouse effect, meaning that .28% of heat trapped in the atmosphere is trapped by CO2. It isn't .28% of the atmosphere itself. CO2 makes up 0.0387% of the atmosphere.

Retaining .009% more heat in the atmosphere will not change the climate. The average temperature on earth is 278.15K. If there were no man-made CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature would be 287.13K (because it retains .00009 less heat). Man made CO2 contributes .025K or .025C/.047F degree change to the atmosphere.

The fact that you worked for an environmental NGO doesn't make you a credible source of information. The #1 priority of any organization (Governments, Businesses, NGOs, Non-Profits) is self preservation. In order for a Environmental NGO to survive, there must be environmental problems. They are also filled with people who tend to believe in Man made climate change. Those two things contribute to the fact that they severely overstate environmental problems--"their wallets are thretened by the lack of anthropogenic warming" you might say.

You can go on believing that anyone trying to argue with you is under the influence of "people whose wallets are threatened by anthropogenic warming", or you could look at the data and draw real conclusions. (Also, the earth is cooler on average than it was 150, 500, and 5000 years ago)

Last, you should post a link to an article that refutes what I said instead of some random website.

Here is the specific thing you wanted. http://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

And it's not a random website, it is run by climatologists and frequently updated. There is data and links and discussion all over. What else could you want?

On that note, this conversation isn't going anywhere since you have decided my background amongst climate scientists and environmental scientists is illegitimate, as well as this website. And thus you are implying the that nearly 100% of climate scientists believe that climate change is man made, as well that the 95% certainty of the IPCC, are wrong.

You wouldn't happen to be someone who believes cigarettes don't cause cancer also, are you?

#33 Edited by Netherscourge (16350 posts) -

@loco145 said:

"Record snowfall & freezing temps throughout the country. Where is Global Warming when you need it?!"

Yea, because two weeks of record lows in portions of some countries means the other 50 weeks in the rest of the world are irrelevant.

#34 Posted by IronBeaver (1986 posts) -

@Netherscourge said:

@loco145 said:

"Record snowfall & freezing temps throughout the country. Where is Global Warming when you need it?!"

Yea, because two weeks of record lows in portions of some countries means the other 50 weeks in the rest of the world are irrelevant.

Again, some people don't know the difference between weather and climate. And when they try to back themselves up with data, it is always cherry picked.

#35 Posted by Netherscourge (16350 posts) -

Not to mention that record snowfall is a result of global warming creating faster-than-normal evaporation.

#36 Posted by EnoshimaJunko (317 posts) -

I just don't get why some people think that global warming or whatever you wanna call it is something new or only caused by humans.

Hey, people, guess what? The climate's always been changing. Always has, and always will. Cuz, ya know, shit changes over time. It used to be a fair bit warmer around 4 or 5 million years ago. And it was a lot colder between 2 million and 10,000 years ago. So what's the big deal?

#37 Edited by deeliman (3445 posts) -

@EnoshimaJunko said:

I just don't get why some people think that global warming or whatever you wanna call it is something new or only caused by humans.

Hey, people, guess what? The climate's always been changing. Always has, and always will. Cuz, ya know, shit changes over time. It used to be a fair bit warmer around 4 or 5 million years ago. And it was a lot colder between 2 million and 10,000 years ago. So what's the big deal?

You could read up on global warming/climate change to understand it better.

#38 Posted by killzowned24 (7345 posts) -

BOOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGmOoo2xAnU

#39 Edited by foxhound_fox (90527 posts) -

Global warming isn't about it getting warmer all the time, it's about the mean temperature of the Earth's climate increasing, causing more severe weather patterns and temperature extremes, both hot and cold.

Look up the Polar Vortex, it's why there was so many record lows the past couple weeks in North America. It's directly related to global warming. A hot-air system pushed the arctic region's atmospheric climate down over North America.

#40 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7877 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

i am a numbers guy, you are a grade A political bullshitter, our views are not made of the same stuff.

Oh a numbers guy you say, so what does that have to do with science or climate change in general? Oh what's that you say? Absolutely fuck all?

You're a supposed 'numbers' guy who touts tea party economics and gold standard tom foolery.

But I can be a bullshitter I admit that, but mostly when it comes to other topics like video games, not science. I actually do R&D work and have a working understanding of chemistry. I can spot scientifically illiterate apes like yourself a mile away.

#41 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

your funny, if your theory does not predict future outcomes accurately, your theory is wrong. no amount of ad homs or dancing around the fact that your theory is wrong will make it seem correct.

feeling are not facts, and no matter how much you want to change the world to make you correct, it is an impossibility as long as you ignore reality.

i have worked at nasa goddard space flight center in GB maryland, you could not spot science in a chemistry classroom. i also have never ever espoused to be a tea party person, just because you do not like reality and would dismiss your ignorance as justified does not make me whatever label you wish to plop on me.

but obviously some guy who says he does R&D in chemistry knows more about economics than a former accounting systems designer who has a formal education in accounting, finance, economics and programming, and who now makes a living shorting in a bull market, obviously my analysis is good enough to live off of even though i do not follow the easy money.

#43 Edited by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

i am a numbers guy, you are a grade A political bullshitter, our views are not made of the same stuff.

"how many alarmist ships are stuck in Antarctic ice expansion in the summer? its at least 3 ATM including at least one "icebreaker""

I've seen this a few dozen times the last few days on quite a few grade A political bullshit forums from a few grade A political bullshitters. If you want to be a numbers guy be a numbers guy, I know from past experiences you can be one but when you open like this you sure as shit aren't being one.

#44 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@Ace6301: if you claim to know the future and get caught in ice expansion in the summer, its easy to see you were wrong, i do not claim to have the answer but i can point out obvious flaws in the thinking. if your science does not follow the scientific method, chances are it is as scientific as astrology, card readings, bone readings or whatever else faith based decision making tickles your fancy.

simply stating that the models and there are many, have never been accurate, is a statement of fact, even the fact that there is more than one model one practiced theory proves how unscientific this "science" is. granted we have two generally accepted models for gravity(newton old vs einstein newish), but they both work here and in practice, they work daily, hourly, whatever, they work. the climate models are wrong, and using wrong to base action over others is also wrong. if or when there is ever a working model that has been tested and proven accurate, then and only then can it justifiably be used in a call to action.

nothing against you ace, but perhaps i think too highly of humanity, the masses who believe in the unquantifiable.

#45 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7877 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

your funny, if your theory does not predict future outcomes accurately, your theory is wrong. no amount of ad homs or dancing around the fact that your theory is wrong will make it seem correct.

feeling are not facts, and no matter how much you want to change the world to make you correct, it is an impossibility as long as you ignore reality.

i have worked at nasa goddard space flight center in GB maryland, you could not spot science in a chemistry classroom. i also have never ever espoused to be a tea party person, just because you do not like reality and would dismiss your ignorance as justified does not make me whatever label you wish to plop on me.

but obviously some guy who says he does R&D in chemistry knows more about economics than a former accounting systems designer who has a formal education in accounting, finance, economics and programming, and who now makes a living shorting in a bull market, obviously my analysis is good enough to live off of even though i do not follow the easy money.

Hardy Har Har. Why that settles it, there are no predictive properties contained in any climate models because surrealnumber says so. I guess burying your head in the sand can cause eyesight and hearing damage over a long period of time.

You can claim to work at any pretend place and keep giving yourself any fake credential you'd like. Hell if you're so SELF CREDENTIALED you shouldn't have a hard time presenting your own peer reviewed literature refuting mountains upon mountains of evidence and papers suggesting otherwise. Go forth science internet warrior, present your scary blogs and graphs that disprove everything! Might want to consult Hokie before as he has some good ones on back file.

In the mean time I'm going to keep chugging along with the side backed up by thousands of peer reviewed papers and every scientific institution on the face of the planet. I guess it doesn't pay to be a self proclaimed 'numbers guy' when it comes to a field you know nothing in.

#46 Posted by outworld222 (2506 posts) -

Its called winter weather my friend. BTW come to California, where you will be convinced of global warming. have a good day.

#47 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

cool debate here is just saying " fake credential" i give respect to the claims of others but the resume i have built mostly when on this site is bull.... ok. i am going back to analyzing IBM and COST for a looming dip, but whatever.

#48 Posted by dave123321 (34361 posts) -

Come back to tdh surreal

#49 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@dave123321: what am i looking for? that site i am yards behinds what is, i am in the past man, if you want me to see you got to point me in the right direction.

#50 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

looks like i made the right call on costco and IBM. cost down about 2.6% IBM down about 1.9%, happy party time for me.

that must be tea party propaganda though.......