Snow in 49 states right now

[DarrinS]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/snow-in-49-states-map_n_807741.html


Al Gore needs to head to Florida.

[jack sommerset]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/snow-in-49-states-map_n_807741.html


Al Gore needs to head to Florida.

Good advice

[George Gervin's Afro]

When is it supposed to snow? Is snow new to you darrins? Have you ever seen snow?

[Drachen]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/snow-in-49-states-map_n_807741.html


Al Gore needs to head to Florida.

Wow, that seems like the kind of wild swings in weather pattern that one would read about when going through some sort of.. um.. what's it called? Climate change.

[jack sommerset]

Wow, that seems like the kind of wild swings in weather pattern that one would read about when going through some sort of.. um.. what's it called? Climate change.

Thanks bro, I forgot the global warming farce was a fail, it's called climate change now. Never had that in 6 billion years.

[Drachen]

I can't say if the evidence is compelling enough for me to conclude that human induced climate change is real (I guess you could say I haven't read enough of it in addition to my not being a climatologist), but I don't need it to be. I have always taken the stance that anything that reduces the pollution being released into the air/water/ground is a good thing, whether that be cap and trade or some other scheme.

However, I find it tiring to read the posts of those who continue to think that weather and climate are synonymous.

[boutons_deux]

Climate instability is an old prediction for global warming.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I can't say if the evidence is compelling enough for me to conclude that human induced climate change is real (I guess you could say I haven't read enough of it in addition to my not being a climatologist), but I don't need it to be. I have always taken the stance that anything that reduces the pollution being released into the air/water/ground is a good thing, whether that be cap and trade or some other scheme.

However, I find it tiring to read the posts of those who continue to think that weather and climate are synonymous.

They don't know any better. they also vanish during the summer when it is unseasonably hot in some places...

[Drachen]

Thanks bro, I forgot the global warming farce was a fail, it's called climate change now. Never had that in 6 billion years.

Global warming = climate change. It is a more descriptive term of what type of climate change is happening ... warming. Now that we are on the same page and you understand what the rest of the world is talking about, lets move on the the second statement. You are absolutely right, climate change is a natural phenomenon occurring throughout the history of the world resulting in wild swings in weather patterns. That is not the question. The question is: Are humans accelerating that pattern? (which in and of itself would be bad)
If so, is it possible that this acceleration will push the natural phenomenon past where it would have ended resulting in an UNnatural phenomenon. (which would be even worse)

There, now you know. You don't have to run around this forum looking ignorant any more.

You can thank me now or later.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Global warming = climate change. It is a more descriptive term of what type of climate change is happening ... warming. Now that we are on the same page and you understand what the rest of the world is talking about, lets move on the the second statement. You are absolutely right, climate change is a natural phenomenon occurring throughout the history of the world resulting in wild swings in weather patterns. That is not the question. The question is: Are humans accelerating that pattern? (which in and of itself would be bad)
If so, is it possible that this acceleration will push the natural phenomenon past where it would have ended resulting in an UNnatural phenomenon. (which would be even worse)

There, now you know. You don't have to run around this forum looking ignorant any more.

You can thank me now or later.

way above the dummy's head..

[jack sommerset]

Global warming = climate change. It is a more descriptive term of what type of climate change is happening ... warming. Now that we are on the same page and you understand what the rest of the world is talking about, lets move on the the second statement. You are absolutely right, climate change is a natural phenomenon occurring throughout the history of the world resulting in wild swings in weather patterns. That is not the question. The question is: Are humans accelerating that pattern? (which in and of itself would be bad)
If so, is it possible that this acceleration will push the natural phenomenon past where it would have ended resulting in an UNnatural phenomenon. (which would be even worse)

There, now you know. You don't have to run around this forum looking ignorant any more.

You can thank me now or later.

Al Gore could have had a well educated lad like yourself on his campaign on his Global Warming run, though he did rake in over a 100 million handling it the way he did. As for the "question", the answer is no.

You can sleep at night now. Thanks me now/later/never it's up 2 you. I don't want you running around here as if the sky is falling scaring tax payers into funding this scam.

[scott]

The supply of "it's cold outside, where is your global warming now?!?!?!" threads seemingly has no end. Glad to see the level of debate is sandwiched right between that of a kindergrartener and a monkey.

[coyotes_geek]

The supply of "it's cold outside, where is your global warming now?!?!?!" threads seemingly has no end. Glad to see the level of debate is sandwiched right between that of a kindergrartener and a monkey.

Just wait til summer, then we'll get the "it's hot outside, your global warming is right here" threads................

[ohmwrecker]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/snow-in-49-states-map_n_807741.html


Al Gore needs to head to Florida.

Yes, because snow falling from the sky proves that global warming doesn't exist.

[ohmwrecker]

Just wait til summer, then we'll get the "it's hot outside, your global warming is right here" threads................

How can you even discuss this issue if you have no idea what you are talking about?

[Drachen]

Al Gore could have had a well educated lad like yourself on his campaign on his Global Warming run, though he did rake in over a 100 million handling it the way he did. As for the "question", the answer is no.

You can sleep at night now. Thanks me now/later/never it's up 2 you. I don't want you running around here as if the sky is falling scaring tax payers into funding this scam.

Where did you study? I mean, where did you get your PHD? How long did your climate study run? Your answer was so definitive with no qualifiers, that I could only surmise that it came from someone who has done exhaustive primary research on the subject. Seems strange, especially since it also came from someone who didn't even know what climate change was.... odd.

Anyway, human induced climate change or not, cap and trade would be great as it would reduce pollutants being spewed into the atmosphere.

[BlairForceDejuan]

The climate has never been unstable in the previous 4 billion years of Earth's existence.

[ohmwrecker]

The climate has never been unstable in the previous 4 billion years of Earth's existence.

Did you forget the blue font?

[BlairForceDejuan]

Pretty narcissistic of humans to put the Earth on their timetable considering the age difference. tbh

[coyotes_geek]

How can you even discuss this issue if you have no idea what you are talking about?

You mean the issue of red team puppets starting "it's cold today, so global warming is bs" threads in the winter and blue team puppets starting "it's hot today, so global warming is real" threads in the summer? As someone who's been a visitor to this forum now for multiple winters and summers and seen the trend I'd say I'm sufficiently qualified to make that observation.

[DarrinS]

The climate has never been stable in the previous 4 billion years of Earth's existence.


Quite true. That's why global warmists are climate change deniers. They don't believe climate change is the norm.


They also LOVE to use anecdotal evidence to support their pet theory, so I don't mind returning the favor.

[ohmwrecker]

You mean the issue of red team puppets starting "it's cold today, so global warming is bs" threads in the winter and blue team puppets starting "it's hot today, so global warming is real" threads in the summer? As someone who's been a visitor to this forum now for multiple winters and summers and seen the trend I'd say I'm sufficiently qualified to make that observation.

Global warming does not mean it's going to be hot all the time. It's an evolutionary increase in extreme weather that will result in an inhospitable (for human life) environment. The Earth is not dying, it's just getting rid of it's disease.

[ohmwrecker]

Quite true. That's why global warmists are climate change deniers. They don't believe climate change is the norm.

That's not the point. The point is to prolong human life. The Earth doesn't need us, we need it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's not the point. The point is to prolong human life. The Earth doesn't need us, we need it.

darrins is only concerned about the economic affects of global warming policies.. the earth has never been better in his eyes..we have mothing to worry about... yet his side talks of the debt crisis and what it will do to our children and grandchildren..oh the feigned outrage.. but his side doesn't see the possible ramifications, regarding earth's atmosphere, to future generations who will live here well beyond all of us...


history will prove one side right...

[coyotes_geek]

Global warming does not mean it's going to be hot all the time. It's an evolutionary increase in extreme weather that will result in an inhospitable (for human life) environment. The Earth is not dying, it's just getting rid of it's disease.

My only point to this is that the proof for or against global warming is not found in today's weather forecast, no matter how hot or cold it is.

[DarrinS]

That's not the point. The point is to prolong human life. The Earth doesn't need us, we need it.

The Earth isn't going anywhere.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin just trolling.

[coyotes_geek]

The Earth isn't going anywhere.

:lol That's exactly what he just said.

[MannyIsGod]

You mean the issue of red team puppets starting "it's cold today, so global warming is bs" threads in the winter and blue team puppets starting "it's hot today, so global warming is real" threads in the summer? As someone who's been a visitor to this forum now for multiple winters and summers and seen the trend I'd say I'm sufficiently qualified to make that observation.

Feel free to provide links to the threads that have been starting using a warm summer day to support AGW.

[MannyIsGod]

Pretty narcissistic of humans to put the Earth on their timetable considering the age difference. tbh

That might be the worst use of that word I've ever seen.

[ohmwrecker]

The Earth isn't going anywhere.

Exactly.

[MannyIsGod]

Quite true. That's why global warmists are climate change deniers. They don't believe climate change is the norm.


They also LOVE to use anecdotal evidence to support their pet theory, so I don't mind returning the favor.

The second part is bullshit. I don't think I've ever once cited anecdotal evidence and certainly not short term weather to try to prove AGW.


As for the first, AGW can be true and the climate can also have changed in the past. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Its like trying to say OJ didn't kill Nicole because people died in the past so obviously Nicole's head chopped itself off.

[ElNono]

Don't remind me you motherfuckers. I froze my ass off cleaning up the car this morning, and we have another storm coming early next week. FML :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Global warming does not mean it's going to be hot all the time. It's an evolutionary increase in extreme weather that will result in an inhospitable (for human life) environment. The Earth is not dying, it's just getting rid of it's disease.

Thats not true at all either but the fact that people think it is remains the biggest reason people can't help but deny AGW.

AGW theory is the understanding that the Earth is warming due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. No climate scientist worth a damn is going to say that this means the extinction of the human race. It could have consequences for the human race, but extinction? Not likely.

[MannyIsGod]

Don't remind me you motherfuckers. I froze my ass off cleaning up the car this morning, and we have another storm coming early next week. FML :lol

Fuck the winter. I've missed SA the most over the past few weeks due to the temps rarely cracking freezing here.

I'm excited to have 40s this week. FUCKING 40s.

[DarrinS]

Feel free to provide links to the threads that have been starting using a warm summer day to support AGW.

Well, not necessarily ONE day, but there are thousands of links (Google it yourself) where a site will say "year X is the hottest year on record" or "hottest November on record" etc. etc.

[ElNono]

Fuck the winter. I've missed SA the most over the past few weeks due to the temps rarely cracking freezing here.

I'm excited to have 40s this week. FUCKING 40s.

I was in the Rio Grande Valley in shorts and sandals when the first storm hit the NE here in late December... so that was nice. :lol

I gotta GTFO from here before I retire. This shit isn't healthy.

[ohmwrecker]

Thats not true at all either but the fact that people think it is remains the biggest reason people can't help but deny AGW.

AGW theory is the understanding that the Earth is warming due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. No climate scientist worth a damn is going to say that this means the extinction of the human race. It could have consequences for the human race, but extinction? Not likely.

It's hard to say if it's true or not. It is probable though. It wouldn't be the first time the Earth has rid itself of an entire species.

[DarrinS]

The second part is bullshit. I don't think I've ever once cited anecdotal evidence and certainly not short term weather to try to prove AGW.


Never said you did. But a lot of people in the AGW community DO use anecdotal evidence. An Inconvenient Truth is one anecdote after another.

[MannyIsGod]

Its not probable at all. The greatest rise in global temps that the models predict - and this is not the likeliest - isn't going to make the planet inhospitable for human life or even close to it. The more likely temperature rising is certainly not going to do that.

If you want to believe that it is, thats your prerogative but that certainly is not what AGW theory, the vast majority of climate scientists, or the IPCC say.

[MannyIsGod]

Never said you did. But a lot of people in the AGW community DO use anecdotal evidence. An Inconvenient Truth is one anecdote after another.

Cool, let me know when Al Gore reads this thread.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, not necessarily ONE day, but there are thousands of links (Google it yourself) where a site will say "year X is the hottest year on record" or "hottest November on record" etc. etc.

Thats a measurement that on its own obviously doesn't prove anything. Its the trends that matter. I will say this, there is a HUGE difference in using an isolated storm system in the middle of winter to prove a point and using temperature records from a year on the entire globe to use as part of a dataset. One even includes the other.

[MannyIsGod]

I was in the Rio Grande Valley in shorts and sandals when the first storm hit the NE here in late December... so that was nice. :lol

I gotta GTFO from here before I retire. This shit isn't healthy.

Summer here is bad ass and chances are that I'll be heading north for grad school so I'd better get used to it. FML.

[coyotes_geek]

Feel free to provide links to the threads that have been starting using a warm summer day to support AGW.

Just a couple I found quickly using the search function for "record heat".

The search does make it blatantly obvious that DarrinS and WC are the two biggest offenders on this practice, so, point made. The "it's cold" threads far outnumber the "it's hot" ones.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57245
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146810
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146794

[boutons_deux]

2010 tied for Earth’s hottest year on record, NOAA reports

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday that last year was tied as the planet's hottest on record.

Surface temperatures in 2010 were tied with 2005: both years, up approximately 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit over the 20th century's average.

Surface temperatures for the Earth's oceans were also up by 0.88 degrees Fahrenheit in 2010, once again tying with 2005, this time for the third warmest year on record.

The NOAA's records date back to 1880 and show, "they said, a rate of warming in the last 30 years that's three times what was seen in the century prior.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/2010-tied-earths-hottest-year-record-noaa-reports/

[MannyIsGod]

Sentence from the OP in first link


I don’t know if this is global warming-related but it's really strange weather.

2nd thread has nothing about GW in the OP.

3rd thread started by RG where he says this:


No actually.

My point was to point out how silly a lot of global climate change deniers are when they try to use isolated events of cold weather to somehow "disprove" the whole notion of human-caused climate change, as DarrinS does on a regular basis.

It is a perfect example of a strawman logical fallacy. Isolated heat waves no more prove global climate change than isolated snow storms disprove it.

[scott]

my only point to this is that the proof for or against global warming is not found in today's weather forecast, no matter how hot or cold it is.

+1

[BlairForceDejuan]

That might be the worst use of that word I've ever seen.

oh no! The Earth's temps have increased 1 degree over the last 20 years. Come plow me Goracle!

[baseline bum]

This shit is lame. Just make a Fuck Al Gore thread and have it pinned to the top of the forum.

[MannyIsGod]

oh no! The Earth's temps have increased 1 degree over the last 20 years. Come plow me Goracle!

Don't get mad at me because you use words incorrectly.

[BlairForceDejuan]

Don't get mad at me because you use words incorrectly.

You're just here to create plastic. Accept it.

BB0aFPXr4n4

[DarrinS]

2010 tied for Earth’s hottest year on record, NOAA reports



Nice anecdote. Thanks for making my point.

[MannyIsGod]

There is a HUGE difference between comparing YOUR anecdote and what NASA says about the entire globe throughout the entire year. One is a dataset useful to analyzing the trend while the other is an isolated weather event that will make up a tiny fraction of the next dataset.

Don't even try to make them look similar because they're not.

[jack sommerset]

Where did you study? I mean, where did you get your PHD? How long did your climate study run? Your answer was so definitive with no qualifiers, that I could only surmise that it came from someone who has done exhaustive primary research on the subject. Seems strange, especially since it also came from someone who didn't even know what climate change was.... odd.

Anyway, human induced climate change or not, cap and trade would be great as it would reduce pollutants being spewed into the atmosphere.

They changed global warming to climate change because the earth has been cooling the past 10 years. Doesn't really follow the whole global warming debate or Al Gore mass destruction video. They are different. Now people like you have grasp the term "climate change". God forbid you just admit you were wrong about the earth heating up so much glaciers would melt and flood the world do to humans. Use common sense man. We're burning more and yet the earth is cooling. Gore said the polar ice caps would melt in 5 years!!!!! Psss, still there and still frozen. Perhaps you should be asking Al Gore about his education.


Climate change is similar to global warming. It's a way to scam more money from folks so people like good old Al Gore can fly around in their private jets (puts out four times the greenhouse gases of a commercial jet.) drive around in his town cars and suburbons so that he can get to 1 of his 4 homes. I bet he has a few kick ass a/c units. Take actions over words. Al Gore doesn't seem nervous about leaving his giant carbon footprint on earth, neither should you.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol Earth is cooling.

[George Gervin's Afro]

They changed global warming to climate change because the earth has been cooling the past 10 years. Doesn't really follow the whole global warming debate or Al Gore mass destruction video. They are different. Now people like you have grasp the term "climate change". God forbid you just admit you were wrong about the earth heating up so much glaciers would melt and flood the world do to humans. Use common sense man. We're burning more and yet the earth is cooling. Gore said the polar ice caps would melt in 5 years!!!!! Psss, still there and still frozen. Perhaps you should be asking Al Gore about his education.


Climate change is similar to global warming. It's a way to scam more money from folks so people like good old Al Gore can fly around in their private jets (puts out four times the greenhouse gases of a commercial jet.) drive around in his town cars and suburbons so that he can get to 1 of his 4 homes. I bet he has a few kick ass a/c units. Take actions over words. Al Gore doesn't seem nervous about leaving his giant carbon footprint on earth, neither should you.

so it was 'they'.. got it


besides al gore who is making this up to live in 4 homes and fly in priovate jets?

who is scamming the money?

[jack sommerset]

so it was 'they'.. got it


besides al gore who is making this up to live in 4 homes and fly in priovate jets?

who is scamming the money?

Have you trained your dog to lick peanut butter out of your ass yet? I know that was a goal of yours this year.

[MannyIsGod]

You've got issues. I really hope that the picture floating around Spurstalk wasn't of you because thinking of you with a daughter is frightening.

[jack sommerset]

You've got issues. I really hope that the picture floating around Spurstalk wasn't of you because thinking of you with a daughter is frightening.

I'm sure you "really" are concerned.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Have you trained your dog to lick peanut butter out of your ass yet? I know that was a goal of yours this year.


so it was 'they'.. got it


besides al gore who is making this up to live in 4 homes and fly in priovate jets?

who is scamming the money?

[jack sommerset]

Have you trained your dog to lick peanut butter out of your ass yet? I know that was a goal of yours this year.

[George Gervin's Afro]

so you can't back up your claim... figured ..more bullshit from a guy who makes unsusbstantiated claims regularly..

[jack sommerset]

so you can't back up your claim... figured ..more bullshit from a guy who makes unsusbstantiated claims regularly..

You're a retarded old fat faggot. Your questions are meaningless and have zero point. I know you think your opinion matters (it doesn't) but you generally come off like a stupid inbred wanting more free shit that is hard up for some sort of deep anal penetration of some sort so I rather discuss that with you. It's entertaining. So did you finally train your dog to eat peanut butter out of your ass?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You're a retarded old fat faggot. Your questions are meaningless and have zero point. I know you think your opinion matters (it doesn't) but you generally come off like a stupid inbred wanting more free shit that is hard up for some sort of deep anal penetration of some sort so I rather discuss that with you. It's entertaining. So did you finally train your dog to eat peanut butter out of your ass?

Ok, we'll try one more time. You made the following statement:


They changed global warming to climate change because the earth has been cooling the past 10 years. Doesn't really follow the whole global warming debate or Al Gore mass destruction video. They are different. Now people like you have grasp the term "climate change". God forbid you just admit you were wrong about the earth heating up so much glaciers would melt and flood the world do to humans. Use common sense man. We're burning more and yet the earth is cooling. Gore said the polar ice caps would melt in 5 years!!!!! Psss, still there and still frozen. Perhaps you should be asking Al Gore about his education.


Climate change is similar to global warming. It's a way to scam more money from folks so people like good old Al Gore can fly around in their private jets (puts out four times the greenhouse gases of a commercial jet.) drive around in his town cars and suburbons so that he can get to 1 of his 4 homes. I bet he has a few kick ass a/c units. Take actions over words. Al Gore doesn't seem nervous about leaving his giant carbon footprint on earth, neither should you.

I am asking you to tell us who else is benefiting from this 'scam'?

If you just made it up say so..

[jack sommerset]

Ok, we'll try one more time. You made the following statement:



I am asking you to tell us who else is benefiting from this 'scam'?

If you just made it up say so..

I'm telling you ask silly little faggot ass questions that are meaningless and u can look up on the internets. Last time. Al Gore for one, Lawrence Bender, Scott Z.Burns, Lesley Chilcott, Davis Guggenheim, Jeffrey D. Ivers, Laurie Lennard, Michale McDermott, Jeff Skoll, Ricky Strauss, Diane Weyermann just to name a few.

This is something you can yahoooooooooooooo! TONS more, TONS! Do a little searching for once. You will be amazed how many thousands of people make money from the global warming scam. Scientist admittedly falsfied documents for the purpose of getting more money to fund this hoax. This information is all over the place. Search the internets. You can do it!!!

Now for something I can't yahoooooooooooooooo. Did you train your dog to lick peanut butter out of your ass yet?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm telling you ask silly little faggot ass questions that are meaningless and u can look up on the internets. Last time. Al Gore for one, Lawrence Bender, Scott Z.Burns, Lesley Chilcott, Davis Guggenheim, Jeffrey D. Ivers, Laurie Lennard, Michale McDermott, Jeff Skoll, Ricky Strauss, Diane Weyermann just to name a few.

This is something you can yahoooooooooooooo! TONS more, TONS! Do a little searching for once. You will be amazed how many thousands of people make money from the global warming scam. Scientist admittedly falsfied documents for the purpose of getting more money to fund this hoax. This information is all over the place. Search the internets. You can do it!!!

Now for something I can't yahoooooooooooooooo. Did you train your dog to lick peanut butter out of your ass yet?

I yahoo'ed the first four names and they are all in the movie business.

:lmao


you might be the biggest dumbass in the history of sprurstalk..

I'll stop looking further because it's obvious the right wing blog you stole this from is wrong..

[jack sommerset]

I yahoo'ed the first four names and they are all in the movie business.

:lmao


you might be the biggest dumbass in the history of sprurstalk..

I'll stop looking further because it's obvious the right wing blog you stole this from is wrong..

Did you see what movie they produced? :lmao Dumbass, global warming was and is a fraud that TONS of people benifit from. It's a huge business. Everyone knows this. Don't have me do your research for you because I won't. You are kool-aid drinking faggot and no matter what anyone shows you who is not slurping on Barrys nuts you will simply dismiss and ask stupid, stupid questions like a 4 year old.

Tell us, did you finally train your dog to lick peanut butter out of your asshole yet?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did you see what movie they produced? :lmao Dumbass, global warming was and is a fraud that TONS of people benifit from. It's a huge business. Everyone knows this. Don't have me do your research for you because I won't. You are kool-aid drinking faggot and no matter what anyone shows you who is not slurping on Barrys nuts you will simply dismiss and ask stupid, stupid questions like a 4 year old.

Tell us, did you finally train your dog to lick peanut butter out of your asshole yet?

Oh ok Hollywood is benefiting from the hoax. I guess based on your logic we can conclude Hollywood benefits financially every time they make a movie..you my friend are an idiot..


Nice research you moron..

[jack sommerset]

Oh ok Hollywood is benefiting from the hoax. I guess based on your logic we can conclude Hollywood benefits financially every time they make a movie..you my friend are an idiot..


Nice research you moron..


Yes parts of Hollywood made money from the lie. An Inconvenient Truth made millions. Some movies lose money so you can't conclude hollywood makes money everytime they make a movie. I'm not your friend and you are the idiot.

Did you train your dog to lick peanut butter out of your so called fuckhole yet?

[RandomGuy]

The supply of "it's cold outside, where is your global warming now?!?!?!" threads seemingly has no end. Glad to see the level of debate is sandwiched right between that of a kindergrartener and a monkey.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637

All you have to do is read the first two posts for a good guide to the "debate".

[SnakeBoy]

The question is: Are humans accelerating that pattern? (which in and of itself would be bad)
If so, is it possible that this acceleration will push the natural phenomenon past where it would have ended resulting in an UNnatural phenomenon. (which would be even worse)


Nice job of making shit up but that is not the question. Is manmade CO2 causing our climate to warm? That is the theory behind policies like cap & trade. And you can't claim cap & trade would be good regardless because it would reduce pollution since the pollutant it aims to reduce is CO2 which isn't a pollutant unless AGW theory is correct.

[redzero]

Wow, 70+ posts? People on SpursTalk must love snow.

[MannyIsGod]

Nice job of making shit up but that is not the question. Is manmade CO2 causing our climate to warm? That is the theory behind policies like cap & trade. And you can't claim cap & trade would be good regardless because it would reduce pollution since the pollutant it aims to reduce is CO2 which isn't a pollutant unless AGW theory is correct.

Ocean acidification says otherwise.

[ChumpDumper]

Snow?

In January?

Big news.

[Yonivore]

Fuck! Global Warming is c-c-c-c-c-c-c-old!

[SnakeBoy]

Ocean acidification says otherwise.

No the theory of ocean acidification says otherwise but that's an entirely seperate theory. One that is far less studied and even more difficult to prove than AGW theory. Not that I necessarily disagree with it.

[MannyIsGod]

No the theory of ocean acidification says otherwise but that's an entirely seperate theory. One that is far less studied and even more difficult to prove than AGW theory. Not that I necessarily disagree with it.

Its not a theory that the ocean is getting more acidic. Its not a theory that this is due to carbonic acid. It isn't a theory that is due increased CO2 amounts placed into the atmosphere.

These are all observed and recorded and far more understood than climate dynamics so I'd wager to say everything you said in your post is wrong.

[SnakeBoy]

I'd wager to say everything you said in your post is wrong.

And you're free to do so. You're also free to provide proof of what you have said.

Here's a little proof of what I said...

Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group
SCOR Biological Observatories Workshop
Venice, September 2009.
http://www.scor-int.org/OBO2009/A&O_Report.pdf

USF Study Shows First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification
January 20, 2010
http://www.physorg.com/news183231158.html

[Wild Cobra]

First thought before reading any posts:


Snow in 49 states right now

Well, that doesn't prove shit. The liberals will tell you that 8 states have no snow.

[Wild Cobra]

Climate instability is an old prediction for global warming.
Really? Tell me now. When has the climate ever been stable?

[Wild Cobra]

The supply of "it's cold outside, where is your global warming now?!?!?!" threads seemingly has no end. Glad to see the level of debate is sandwiched right between that of a kindergrartener and a monkey.
Problem is, we see no amount of warming that confidently exceeds that of the 30's, or other periods in history. There simply are natural cycles, and anyone who understands all the information available would agree. There is no evidence that anthropogenic warming is increasing the natural effect. It would seem that nature compensates for the little added capture of heat we introduce into the system.

[Wild Cobra]

Where did you study? I mean, where did you get your PHD? How long did your climate study run? Your answer was so definitive with no qualifiers, that I could only surmise that it came from someone who has done exhaustive primary research on the subject. Seems strange, especially since it also came from someone who didn't even know what climate change was.... odd.
Education has nothing to do with being able to understand concepts. In fact, I would argue that universities today keep peoples mind inside a box. A box that is often, indoctrinations. Especially when it comes to Climatology.

Anyone who thinks it requires a degree to be competent on a topic, is incompetent.

Anyway, human induced climate change or not, cap and trade would be great as it would reduce pollutants being spewed into the atmosphere.
If it only affected USA companies, I would say maybe. Problem is, it would becomes a global redistribution of wealth.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you forget the blue font?
Either that, or he forgot things like "the flood."

[Wild Cobra]

Thats not true at all either but the fact that people think it is remains the biggest reason people can't help but deny AGW.
Maybe when you stop limiting your thinking, to believeing we use one thing, m,aybe you will start to understand. The fact that we continue to have near record colds simply shows the AGW theory can be picked away at, and it is one of several ways to pick at it. I doubt you will find any one of us real scientific types (meaning skeptical till proven) saying that is the binding proof that AGW is false.

We simply aren't as stupid as you true believers.

AGW theory is the understanding that the Earth is warming due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. No climate scientist worth a damn is going to say that this means the extinction of the human race. It could have consequences for the human race, but extinction? Not likely.
Sure, the earth is warming some from man made greenhouse gasses. You will not find any of us who studied the issue to disagree with that. We simply say that it is significantly lower of a warming effect than you lemmings believe.

[Wild Cobra]

Ocean acidification says otherwise.
Ocean acidification is like what came first. The chicken or the egg. There is a flip side to that you know.

[RandomGuy]

CO2 which isn't a pollutant

Ocean acidification says otherwise.

No the theory of ocean acidification says otherwise but that's an entirely seperate theory. One that is far less studied and even more difficult to prove than AGW theory.


Its not a theory that the ocean is getting more acidic. Its not a theory that this is due to carbonic acid. It isn't a theory that is due increased CO2 amounts placed into the atmosphere.

I'd wager to say everything you said in your post is wrong.


And you're free to do so. You're also free to provide proof of what you have said.

Here's a little proof of what I said...

Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group
SCOR Biological Observatories Workshop
Venice, September 2009.
http://www.scor-int.org/OBO2009/A&O_Report.pdf

USF Study Shows First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification
January 20, 2010
http://www.physorg.com/news183231158.html

??????????????????????


the oceans have taken up at least one third of the total amount of CO2 produced by human activities since 1800 and one half of all fossil fuel emissions (Sabine et al., 2004). This addition of CO2 to the surface ocean changes seawater chemistry, resulting in a decrease in pH (Fig. 2) and carbonate ion concentration, and an increase in the concentrations of bicarbonate and hydrogen ion – ocean acidification. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere seems likely to double over its pre‐industrial value by the middle of this century: in response the chemistry of the ocean is changing more rapidly than at any time in the past 20 million years (Feely et al., 2004).


Adding carbon dioxide to seawater makes it more acidic, and each year the world’s oceans absorb about one-third of the atmospheric CO2 produced by human activities.

Using pH-sensitive dyes that turn from purple to yellow in more acidic waters, the scientists were able to track changes produced by 15 years of CO2 uptake near the ocean's surface, Byrne said. In deeper waters, down to about half a mile, both anthropogenic and naturally occurring changes in CO2 and pH were seen. In the very deepest waters, no significant pH changes were seen.

The results verify earlier model projections that the oceans are becoming more acidic because of the uptake of carbon dioxide released as a result of fossil fuel burning

I guess one can say man-made CO2 as a pollutant is indeed a *theory*, and even that our CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification, but it seems to be one that is supported by some pretty good evidence and that fits observed data.

One can easily say that it is a FACT that oceons are becoming more acidic, because that is a direct measurement. In that, Manny is exactly right.

Given that changes in acidity have the potential to collapse aquatic food chains by killing off the plankton that form it's base, that should be a cause for concern.

[RandomGuy]

Unless of course snow in the Southern US somehow disproves ocean acidity measurements? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

I guess one can say man-made CO2 as a pollutant is indeed a *theory*, and even that our CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification, but it seems to be one that is supported by some pretty good evidence and that fits observed data.
You don't get it. There is another important variable to ocean acidification. The simple fact that it isn't addressed, and scientifically eliminated before blaming CO2, makes the article void. I'll bet Manny cannot even tell us what that other important variable is, because he is so indoctrinated by the pseudoscience he was taught.

One can easily say that it is a FACT that oceons are becoming more acidic, because that is a direct measurement. In that, Manny is exactly right.
I will agree the measurement are likely correct.

Given that changes in acidity have the potential to collapse aquatic food chains by killing off the plankton that form it's base, that should be a cause for concern.
Yes, it is a concern. So is the false science that ignores other possible causes.

[RandomGuy]

You don't get it. There is another important variable to ocean acidification. The simple fact that it isn't addressed, and scientifically eliminated before blaming CO2, makes the article void.

... and that variable is?

And you have read the scientific papers to be able to make the claim that the variable has not been considered?

[Wild Cobra]

... and that variable is?

And you have read the scientific papers to be able to make the claim that the variable has not been considered?
I'll let you find that for yourself. If you are going to blindly follow someone, then so be it. If you are unwilling to do a little research, then that's on you. I have posted a chart showing another significant factor to acidification in the past. The fact you deniers of proper science so easily forget, prove you are useful idiots to the agenda. You simply tune out any pertinent information that is contrary to your belief.

Let Manny tell you. He claims to know all this stuff.

[RandomGuy]

I'll let you find that for yourself. If you are going to blindly follow someone, then so be it. If you are unwilling to do a little research, then that's on you. I have posted a chart showing another significant factor to acidification in the past. The fact you deniers of proper science so easily forget, prove you are useful idiots to the agenda. You simply tune out any pertinent information that is contrary to your belief.

Let Manny tell you. He claims to know all this stuff.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

If you want to be an ass, and not even tell me what it is, the only logical thing to do is dismiss your claim out of hand.

"deniers of proper science" :rolleyes

Thanks for the chuckle. We're all part of the conspiracy to keep your ideas down. It amuses us when you figure that out.

[Blake]

I'll let you find that for yourself.... If you are unwilling to do a little research, then that's on you.

:rollin

Par FTC

[ChumpDumper]

So, a person that has a belief in a particular theory finds a small sample of data to butress that belief.


Isn't that confirmation bias?Yes, it is.

[BlackSwordsMan]

still no snow in san antonio =/

[SnakeBoy]

Unless of course snow in the Southern US somehow disproves ocean acidity measurements? :lol

No the op is only another example of the fact that people who reject agw theory like to talk about the weather in the winter and people who accept agw theory like to talk about the weather in the summer.



??????????????????????
I guess one can say man-made CO2 as a pollutant is indeed a *theory*, and even that our CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification, but it seems to be one that is supported by some pretty good evidence and that fits observed data.

One can easily say that it is a FACT that oceons are becoming more acidic, because that is a direct measurement. In that, Manny is exactly right.

Given that changes in acidity have the potential to collapse aquatic food chains by killing off the plankton that form it's base, that should be a cause for concern.

I like how you scanned through the links I gave only looking for a sentence that would support your position. If you were really looking for an honest discussion you would have recognized that the first link from Sept. 2009 is not proof of ocean acidification and instead of quoting a sentence from the background section you would have grasped the point of of the entire article, which is that ocean acidification is something that needs to be studied. Which contradicts Manny's position position that ocean acidification is a fact that is more studied and understood than AGW theory.

The second link refers a recent single study which is the FIRST direct evidence of ocean acidification. A single study is hardly enough to be absolute scientific proof and certainly not enough to support Manny's claim that ocean acidification is more understood than AGW theory.

And just as with the global temperature, even if it is shown that the ph of the oceans is decreasing there is still the burden of proof to show that our burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. There is a body of evidence that our destruction of rainforests worlwide has had as great or greater impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course that doesn't really fit into the political agenda of the agw crowd, which is probably why that science has been largely ignored by the IPCC.

That's all from this denier who dares to question the assertions of the agw crowd. The debate is over...for me at least. Carry on folks.

gBfDqlLtH9c

[Wild Cobra]

Your claim, your burden of proof.

If you want to be an ass, and not even tell me what it is, the only logical thing to do is dismiss your claim out of hand.

"deniers of proper science" :rolleyes

Thanks for the chuckle. We're all part of the conspiracy to keep your ideas down. It amuses us when you figure that out.
LOL...

It's times like this that I really wonder why I spend so much time with you idiots.

Are you saying CO2 levels in sea water are the only significant factor to PH?

I'll tell you what. I'll give you a hint that may jog a few braincells if you took any chemistry.

Temperature changes equilibrium of reactions. With global warming, is also the warning of sea water.

[Ignignokt]

Global warming does not mean it's going to be hot all the time. It's an evolutionary increase in extreme weather that will result in an inhospitable (for human life) environment. The Earth is not dying, it's just getting rid of it's disease.

This is the most idiotic statement ever. humans are a part of nature, and our technologies and capacities are all part of nature. Nature is not some fucking brook with bunny rabbits, bambi, and a little abode down by the hills you dumbfuck. Nature is the Universe, the metaphysical world.

You're just as ignorant about nature as Yoni is about climate change.

Human capablities of reason are not synthetic, it's organic, man does not alter the laws of nature or it's essence, he merely arranges what is organic already and suits it to fit his needs.

[MannyIsGod]

No the op is only another example of the fact that people who reject agw theory like to talk about the weather in the winter and people who accept agw theory like to talk about the weather in the summer.




I like how you scanned through the links I gave only looking for a sentence that would support your position. If you were really looking for an honest discussion you would have recognized that the first link from Sept. 2009 is not proof of ocean acidification and instead of quoting a sentence from the background section you would have grasped the point of of the entire article, which is that ocean acidification is something that needs to be studied. Which contradicts Manny's position position that ocean acidification is a fact that is more studied and understood than AGW theory.

The second link refers a recent single study which is the FIRST direct evidence of ocean acidification. A single study is hardly enough to be absolute scientific proof and certainly not enough to support Manny's claim that ocean acidification is more understood than AGW theory.


Actually if you would have read the links you would have seen that the context of the second link was the first direct study that measured the PH in an ocean basin. You think this is the first time we've taken PH readings in the ocean and noticed that the PH has been going up?

I'd agree that a single study would not be enough, however there are decades of studies into this (much like AGW actually) and there is far less political controversy because the ocean's role int he carbon cycle is understood. You add more carbon to the air and the ocean will absorb more and the PH will go up. You can replicate this on a smaller scale unlike the atmospheric actions required for climate dynamics. I can take a small lab and prove to you that added CO2 content into air coming into contact with water will raise the acidity of that water.

In any event, there is an known mechanism by which we can readily explain the PH drop in the oceans and its well understood. There should be little doubt to anyone that CO2 is indeed a pollutant but you're welcome to believe otherwise.



And just as with the global temperature, even if it is shown that the ph of the oceans is decreasing there is still the burden of proof to show that our burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. There is a body of evidence that our destruction of rainforests worlwide has had as great or greater impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course that doesn't really fit into the political agenda of the agw crowd, which is probably why that science has been largely ignored by the IPCC.

That's all from this denier who dares to question the assertions of the agw crowd. The debate is over...for me at least. Carry on folks.

gBfDqlLtH9c

Ignored? The IPCC attributed a large portion (around 25% if I recall correctly) to deforestation. How on earth is that ignoring the fact?

[SnakeBoy]

I really intended not to respond anymore in this thread but you are being too stupid.


You think this is the first time we've taken PH readings in the ocean and noticed that the PH has been going up?



You add more carbon to the air and the ocean will absorb more and the PH will go up.

Doh!


You can replicate this on a smaller scale unlike the atmospheric actions required for climate dynamics. I can take a small lab and prove to you that added CO2 content into air coming into contact with water will raise the acidity of that water.


This statement really shows you don't know wtf you're talking about more than you not even being able to keep straight whether co2 increases or decreases ph. It's the equivalent of saying the sky is blue when discussing the worlds weather patterns. I can (and am) pumping CO2 into reef aquariums in order to increase the growth of calcareous corals without lowering the PH. Can you tell me how I am doing that if the chemistry of the seawater in a biological system is so cut and dry?

Seriously Manny, you seem like a smart guy but on this issue you're just being stupid. Keep in mind I'm not denying the theory of ocean acidification. I actually think it's a stronger argument for limiting CO2 than global warming (in fact I argued that with Wild Cobra a long time ago) but for you to claim that the ocean carbon cycle is simple and fully understood is just stupid.

Here's another link for you. Now it's 5 whole pages (but interesting) so try not to fixate on every sentence that supports your dogma and try to take in the larger point that the oceans aren't such a simple thing after all and scientists are a long way from having it all figured out.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/page1.php

[SnakeBoy]

Ignored? The IPCC attributed a large portion (around 25% if I recall correctly) to deforestation. How on earth is that ignoring the fact?

I said largely ignored. If they had research indicating the effect is equal to or greater than the effect of burning fossils fuels and they said 25% then I think saying "largely ignored" is appropriate.

[RandomGuy]

No the op is only another example of the fact that people who reject agw theory like to talk about the weather in the winter and people who accept agw theory like to talk about the weather in the summer.




I like how you scanned through the links I gave only looking for a sentence that would support your position. If you were really looking for an honest discussion you would have recognized that the first link from Sept. 2009 is not proof of ocean acidification and instead of quoting a sentence from the background section you would have grasped the point of of the entire article, which is that ocean acidification is something that needs to be studied. Which contradicts Manny's position position that ocean acidification is a fact that is more studied and understood than AGW theory.

The second link refers a recent single study which is the FIRST direct evidence of ocean acidification. A single study is hardly enough to be absolute scientific proof and certainly not enough to support Manny's claim that ocean acidification is more understood than AGW theory.

And just as with the global temperature, even if it is shown that the ph of the oceans is decreasing there is still the burden of proof to show that our burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. There is a body of evidence that our destruction of rainforests worlwide has had as great or greater impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. Of course that doesn't really fit into the political agenda of the agw crowd, which is probably why that science has been largely ignored by the IPCC.

That's all from this denier who dares to question the assertions of the agw crowd. The debate is over...for me at least. Carry on folks.



Don't go getting your panties in a bunch simply because you left it for me to figure out exactly what you meant by the articles.

If you want to post material, but don't tell me how you think it supports your case, you will have to allow for some misinterpretation since I can't read your mind. I made an honest attempt to figure out what you were trying to say, and came away a bit confused.

Ocean acidification is a helluva lot simpler to measure and study than temperature of the atmosphere, from what I understand.

Manny may have indeed overstated our total understanding of it, but the fact remains, that our understanding, such as it is, points to CO2 being a problem in that regard, if nothing else.

[RandomGuy]

I said largely ignored. If they had research indicating the effect is equal to or greater than the effect of burning fossils fuels and they said 25% then I think saying "largely ignored" is appropriate.

That doesn't prove "largely ignored". That proves they didn't think it was as much of a factor as burning fossil fuels. If the weight of research says one thing, but you find an outlier saying something completely the opposite, how do you reconcile that reasonably?

You discount the outlier, until you get more information.

Is that really an unreasonable conclusion?

By the by:

link?

[MannyIsGod]

I really intended not to respond anymore in this thread but you are being too stupid.





Doh!



This statement really shows you don't know wtf you're talking about more than you not even being able to keep straight whether co2 increases or decreases ph. It's the equivalent of saying the sky is blue when discussing the worlds weather patterns. I can (and am) pumping CO2 into reef aquariums in order to increase the growth of calcareous corals without lowering the PH. Can you tell me how I am doing that if the chemistry of the seawater in a biological system is so cut and dry?

Seriously Manny, you seem like a smart guy but on this issue you're just being stupid. Keep in mind I'm not denying the theory of ocean acidification. I actually think it's a stronger argument for limiting CO2 than global warming (in fact I argued that with Wild Cobra a long time ago) but for you to claim that the ocean carbon cycle is simple and fully understood is just stupid.

Here's another link for you. Now it's 5 whole pages (but interesting) so try not to fixate on every sentence that supports your dogma and try to take in the larger point that the oceans aren't such a simple thing after all and scientists are a long way from having it all figured out.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/page1.php

I'm being stupid? Really now? Because I'm not breaking down explicit details for you of a very broad system in a fucking Spurstalk post when you're arguing for the sake of arguing?

I never once said anything was a simple system. Not once. Thats you're purposely obtuse inference so that you could keep arguing for the sake of arguing. These are the facts as I have pointed them out.

1. Ocean PH is dropping.
2. Atmospheric CO2 content is rising.
3. The ocean is known to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and this is known to make it more acidic.

Its so god damn stupid to say that we don't know that CO2 is a pollutant when we're observing the effects and you even agree with them. If you want to argue the semantics of what is better understood then feel free, but acting as if I'm stupid for pointing out some basic principles (I never said they were absolute in every situation - thats your shitty inference not mine) is beyond moronic.

If you can find a credible reason for ocean acidity rising across the globe that is not CO2 then I'm all ears.

[MannyIsGod]

I said largely ignored. If they had research indicating the effect is equal to or greater than the effect of burning fossils fuels and they said 25% then I think saying "largely ignored" is appropriate.

LOL and I'm being the stupid one? Pretty sure largely ignored is completely incorrect when the IPCC is claiming it is a quarter of the forcing.

Edit - Not to mention the newer research I've seen says its actually a lower amount than the 25% so if anything the IPCC has overstated its values.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, about the IPCC and their "projections."

Sea level may drop in 2010 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/sea-level-may-drop-in-2010/)


Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections. The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate. The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns. A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned. If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.

[Wild Cobra]

This statement really shows you don't know wtf you're talking about more than you not even being able to keep straight whether co2 increases or decreases ph. It's the equivalent of saying the sky is blue when discussing the worlds weather patterns. I can (and am) pumping CO2 into reef aquariums in order to increase the growth of calcareous corals without lowering the PH. Can you tell me how I am doing that if the chemistry of the seawater in a biological system is so cut and dry?

Seriously Manny, you seem like a smart guy but on this issue you're just being stupid. Keep in mind I'm not denying the theory of ocean acidification. I actually think it's a stronger argument for limiting CO2 than global warming (in fact I argued that with Wild Cobra a long time ago) but for you to claim that the ocean carbon cycle is simple and fully understood is just stupid.

Here's another link for you. Now it's 5 whole pages (but interesting) so try not to fixate on every sentence that supports your dogma and try to take in the larger point that the oceans aren't such a simple thing after all and scientists are a long way from having it all figured out.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/page1.php
What they don't understand is PH is more regulated by temperature than Co2. That's because the temperature regulates the equilibrium of the different carbon forms in the water. If I recall, salinity does also.

They are just lemming losers, believing any hype of global warming.