What will it take, for YOU to believe in global warming?

[byrontx]

Science is not something that you "believe" in. Science doesn't give a what you believe. Climate change is is established and has data to back it. You have facts to the contrary, produce it (allegories do not count for crap).

[byrontx]

Gulf of Mexico is averaging 2 degrees warmer than 30 years ago. This enabled Harvey to rebuild into a major storm quicker than would have been the case a generation ago.

[baseline bum]

Ah the age old debate of who to trust more about our climate: climate scientists or Republicans?

[UZER]

Science is not something that you "believe" in. Science doesn't give a what you believe. Climate change is is established and has data to back it. You have facts to the contrary, produce it (allegories do not count for crap).

You mean science like: eggs are good for, no wait, eggs are bad for you. Fat is good for you, no wait, fat is bad for you, no wait again, fat is good for you.

Scientist change their mind all the time. These are in the moment theories.

[byrontx]

Science will conform new facts. You have new facts regarding climate change, please share them with the 99% of scientists agree climate change is real and affected by human activity. If all you have is Fox News gibberish, go to sciencenews.com and educate yourself a bit.

[lefty20]

A tweet from POTUS will do the job.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

You mean science like: eggs are good for, no wait, eggs are bad for you. Fat is good for you, no wait, fat is bad for you, no wait again, fat is good for you.

Scientist change their mind all the time. These are in the moment theories.

Agreed. Not too long ago it was, margarine (with eliadic trans fatty acid) was considered much healthier than butter. And fat, rather than starchy carbs, were linked to obesity.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Lotta talk about semantics in this thread
MiG would rather talk pedantry than flatly admit he be wrong

[spurraider21]

You mean science like: eggs are good for, no wait, eggs are bad for you. Fat is good for you, no wait, fat is bad for you, no wait again, fat is good for you.

Scientist change their mind all the time. These are in the moment theories.

Did you take a smallpox vaccine?

[Mark Celibate]

http://gizmodo.com/how-a-team-of-met...cte-1798678986

I don't expect laymen to understand the context of this, but this is a reading that we've never come close to. This is a measure of the amount of water vapor in the atmospheric column, and directly shows that the atmosphere was holding more water than had ever been measured. So while yes, Harvey stalling as a major contributor to the flooding, this shows that even without slowing down Harvey was working within an atmospheric environment that had more water to be rained out than we've ever seen.

Furthermore, we don't need stalling storms to produce record flooding and we likely didn't here either. The Memorial day floods last year happened due to an immense amount of rain in a short period of time, for instance. The majority of the flooding in this situation occurred due to high rain rates over a short period of time on Saturday. There was a lot of rain that fell after that and made things worse, but that initial band had incredible rain rates and places got a foot of rain in a couple of hours. That has nothing to do with a stalled system but rather a system that is working with a) an atmosphere with incredible moisture content and b) a plentiful source of water vapor to recharge the atmosphere (the Gulf with incredibly high SSTs).

It's fairly impossible to be dismissive of the impact of climate change on the precipitation in this event but then again it's impossible to ignore all of the evidence that climate change exists and yet we have deniers in this nation so do with this information what you will.

Thanks for this, that was a helpful article tbh.

Can confirm the link between the Memorial Day floods and the Saturday night flooding since I was here for both. The Saturday night bands were lethal and it had rain coming out at 5-6 inches per hour in some readings. Those definitely did the most damage and Sunday morning is when the nation woke up and saw Houston underwater. We had moderate/heavy rainfall over the next few days but those were just the cherry on top.

[MannyIsGod]

Lotta talk about semantics in this thread
MiG would rather talk pedantry than flatly admit he be wrong

I was wrong.

[pgardn]

You mean science like: eggs are good for, no wait, eggs are bad for you. Fat is good for you, no wait, fat is bad for you, no wait again, fat is good for you.

Scientist change their mind all the time. These are in the moment theories.

What does this mean? Moment theories?

Darwin was wrong and/or lacked evidence concerning a number of aspects of natural selection as a driver of evolution. So is natural selection an "in the moment theory"? Refinement has occurred.

Newton's ideas about gravity are not exact enoug when dealing with big distance, does this mean his in the moment theory is wrong concerning gravity? Will apples now fall differently? Refinement has occurred.

This whole deal is partially a press problem, and then just flat out lies concerning science. When you look at food science and look at what the press presents realize two things:

1. The press likes wow findings. So they pick up on and rewrite articles in weak journals they know will have an impact. "Oh, pure bacon grease is NOW good for you, Fckn science"

2. Food science is biology, and biology is extraordinarily difficult to control and get as meaningful results as chemistry, and especially physics.

With Climate we have good ways of gathering data and weighing the meaning. When people who do this for a living tell us why they think that man made warming is occurring I'm going with it. WTF, would they all just collude and lie together? More notoriety comes from actually doing solid science that comes from refuting something that others missed. (And it also brings the delusional WC gadflys who think they are geniuses in an area they have taken up as a hobby.)



All of the denyial basically comes from the same idea. The earth atmosphere has warmed and cooled significantly before. So these little insignificant creatures CANNOT have a real role. TThis is just flat out WRONG. Many species have had huge effects on the earth that have been catastrophic for some species.

When photosynthetic organisms first evolved, the Earth had almost zero O2 in the atmosphere and anaerobic organisms ruled the earth. As O2 was produced and reacted with surroundings making oxides, there was little affect on the atmosphere. When the oxygen sink was full, the O2 was now free to hang about in the atmosphere. Now the earth has a full 20% level of O2! And the anaerobes, you gotta look in very special environments to find them. Aerobic organisms rule as far as speciation and sheer numbers.

So BS to this notion we can't change or have little effect on what was already an Earth that already has undergone temperature changes. Ignorant Conservatives are conservative for a reason. The switch for a non changing world is stuck on matters that don't fit their worldview. Why don't they argue that water is not H2O? We have never ever directly seen a water molecule? A: It has little impact on their dogma.

[spurraider21]

Yeah actually. But I got a degree, and I'm halfway to a PhD now where I actively study ways to measure it's effects. I was convinced before I went back to school but I was basically had enough knowledge to think I knew better than I actually did when I was a skeptic. Honestly don't remember what led to my change in thinking but it's pretty damn clear what the evidence says when you actually look at the evidence.

so what you're really saying is you've been brainwashed by liberal ins utions

[RandomGuy]

Scientific proof that it's more than just normal cycles of the Earth. Unfortunately, that will probably take several hundred years minimum to achieve....I'm not expecting to see the conclusion.

Looks like we are getting close. Googley boogley.

[MannyIsGod]

Man that shut you up real quick, cbf.

[lefty20]

A category 5 hurricane forming in the Pacific and heading directly to Bay area leading to the disappearance of 2 individuals known as cupcake and donkey.

[Cry Havoc]

Yeah actually. But I got a degree, and I'm halfway to a PhD now where I actively study ways to measure it's effects. I was convinced before I went back to school but I was basically had enough knowledge to think I knew better than I actually did when I was a skeptic. Honestly don't remember what led to my change in thinking but it's pretty damn clear what the evidence says when you actually look at the evidence.

What's good, man? What are you doing in the field these days?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

A category 5 hurricane forming in the Pacific and heading directly to Bay area leading to the disappearance of 2 individuals known as cupcake and donkey.

with sharks

[Spurtacular]

It's Monday, september 26th, (yes, september TWENTY SIXTH) and it's still in the triple digits, every day, for extended periods of time. Austin hit record highs BEFORE the 'cane started to affect us. Don't give me any of that "hurricane pushed warmer weather to us" bull , it's been this hot non stop since like May..

What is it going to take for people to believe Global Warming does exist?

Will people like joechhehehejaaam still insist global warming is a farse when fall and spring are non-existent here in Texas, and Winter lasts 2 months?
What will it take for you to finally believe in it? What will you do once you believe it exists?

Twelve years later and even libturds aren't calling it global warming.

[SnakeBoy]

Twelve years later and even libturds aren't calling it global warming.

It's Tuesday September 12th and it's 63 degrees

[UNT Eagles 2016]

It's Tuesday September 12th and it's 63 degrees

Normal variance.

It's going to be 94/75 next week in Dallas, probably more in SA. Just saying

As recently as Sept 2013, it was 106 degrees in Denton on September 30th (and most of early September as well it was around 107 degrees that year in Denton).

[UZER]

What does this mean? Moment theories?

Darwin was wrong and/or lacked evidence concerning a number of aspects of natural selection as a driver of evolution. So is natural selection an "in the moment theory"? Refinement has occurred.

Newton's ideas about gravity are not exact enoug when dealing with big distance, does this mean his in the moment theory is wrong concerning gravity? Will apples now fall differently? Refinement has occurred.

This whole deal is partially a press problem, and then just flat out lies concerning science. When you look at food science and look at what the press presents realize two things:

1. The press likes wow findings. So they pick up on and rewrite articles in weak journals they know will have an impact. "Oh, pure bacon grease is NOW good for you, Fckn science"

2. Food science is biology, and biology is extraordinarily difficult to control and get as meaningful results as chemistry, and especially physics.

With Climate we have good ways of gathering data and weighing the meaning. When people who do this for a living tell us why they think that man made warming is occurring I'm going with it. WTF, would they all just collude and lie together? More notoriety comes from actually doing solid science that comes from refuting something that others missed. (And it also brings the delusional WC gadflys who think they are geniuses in an area they have taken up as a hobby.)



All of the denyial basically comes from the same idea. The earth atmosphere has warmed and cooled significantly before. So these little insignificant creatures CANNOT have a real role. TThis is just flat out WRONG. Many species have had huge effects on the earth that have been catastrophic for some species.

When photosynthetic organisms first evolved, the Earth had almost zero O2 in the atmosphere and anaerobic organisms ruled the earth. As O2 was produced and reacted with surroundings making oxides, there was little affect on the atmosphere. When the oxygen sink was full, the O2 was now free to hang about in the atmosphere. Now the earth has a full 20% level of O2! And the anaerobes, you gotta look in very special environments to find them. Aerobic organisms rule as far as speciation and sheer numbers.

So BS to this notion we can't change or have little effect on what was already an Earth that already has undergone temperature changes. Ignorant Conservatives are conservative for a reason. The switch for a non changing world is stuck on matters that don't fit their worldview. Why don't they argue that water is not H2O? We have never ever directly seen a water molecule? A: It has little impact on their dogma.

So is it still called global warming? Or climate change?

[mookie2001]

Cbf 05 EXPOSED LOL

[spurraider21]

So is it still called global warming? Or climate change?

Why is the name so important to you?

The overarching theory is the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Global warming is one of the indicators of it

It's been called climate change going back as far as the 50's. There wasn't some liberal plot in the 2000's to replace global warming with climate change

[UZER]

Why is the name so important to you?

The overarching theory is the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Global warming is one of the indicators of it

It's been called climate change going back as far as the 50's. There wasn't some liberal plot in the 2000's to replace global warming with climate change

Because it was brought to the masses (in the 90s) as global warming with alarm bells ringing that within 20 years the earth as we know it would be destroyed. Then, when the earth wasn't destroyed, it was changed to climate change.

Now, either someone (the community) was purposely lying, or their calculations are just way off. Either of those choices isn't great.