|
|
| It's official: Global warming is over (508984) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (508984) | |
It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 19:52:54 2009 If you've lost the BBC, you've lost the worldGotta love how the die hards are trying to spin all the evidence. Apparently 10 years of cooling is not enough to indicate a long term trend, but 5 years of warming is. |
|
|
| (508987) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 10 19:55:31 2009, in response to It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 19:52:54 2009. So maybe Jimmy Carter was right after all. The Earth is in danger from "Global Cooling". Either that or we better listen to Chicken Little because "The sky is falling!!". |
|
|
| (509008) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 20:14:33 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 10 19:55:31 2009. Jimmy Carter was kinda right. All the climate information up to 1980 demonstrated a 30-40 year trend towards cooling. The problem came when some climatologists assumed the trend would continue basically unabated. That's what a lot of AGW alarmists did over the last decade.Climate change cannot be accurately predicted, it can only be witnessed. |
|
|
| (509012) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 10 20:16:50 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 20:14:33 2009. I still believe that it is cyclical and more determined by geological factors such as plate shifts and volcanic activity than by some fool venting freon while fixing his auto air conditioner. |
|
|
| (509014) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 20:17:39 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 20:14:33 2009. I think that it can and will be predicted. If they are right and sunspots have as big an effect as stated, they seem to be able to predict long periods of increased sunspot activity. |
|
|
| (509015) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Sat Oct 10 20:17:42 2009, in response to It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 19:52:54 2009. See paragraphs 12-14.You see, I have a basic scientific/mathematical outlook. I know that we have had the means to monitor some of the subtle climate changes for a relatively short time in the earth’s history. I also know about the effects of carbon dioxide and methane. So unlike some human ostriches, I think that we should be taking steps to curtail the output of gases we are fairly sure could be a problem, while refining our models as we gain more information. Or we could wait until Florida is underwater, as you are implicitly proposing. |
|
|
| (509018) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 20:22:49 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by JohnL on Sat Oct 10 20:17:42 2009. lol. It's not OBS, but I can see how it's hard to tell the difference anymore. |
|
|
| (509022) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Oct 10 20:27:15 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 20:22:49 2009. No. John L was just trying to insult and get a reaction. |
|
|
| (509024) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 20:29:28 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Oct 10 20:27:15 2009. Which one was he insulting? |
|
|
| (509025) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Oct 10 20:30:49 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 20:29:28 2009. Probably both. He's a smart ass. Maybe he'll be happy when he gets the Playgirl edition with Levy Johnston. |
|
|
| (509036) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 20:35:13 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Oct 10 20:30:49 2009. I try to insult Chris, because OBS is already too far gone. Maybe we can pull Chris back to rational discussion by pointing where he's headed and often is, but it's not looking good. |
|
|
| (509038) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Oct 10 20:38:47 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by JohnL on Sat Oct 10 20:17:42 2009. Or we could wait until Florida is underwater, as you are implicitly proposing.Maybe that's not such a bad idea... ;-) |
|
|
| (509046) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Oct 10 20:47:42 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by JohnL on Sat Oct 10 20:17:42 2009. You are correct.Regarding the poster, you have to in understand, as we've seen before many times, Chris only reads headlines. |
|
|
| (509058) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Oct 10 20:59:05 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 20:35:13 2009. What's wrong with OBS? He posts truths? |
|
|
| (509062) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 21:01:00 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Oct 10 20:59:05 2009. As posts the truth as he sees it. |
|
|
| (509063) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 21:01:22 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 21:01:00 2009. He posts the truth as he sees it. |
|
|
| (509156) | |
Re: It's official: There are too many libs on OTChat |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 23:39:49 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Oct 10 20:59:05 2009. Painful ones, too. |
|
|
| (509160) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and "anthropogenic" same never existed |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 23:43:46 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by JohnL on Sat Oct 10 20:17:42 2009. I also know about the effects of carbon dioxide and methaneEffects? The only effects of CO2 is that plants breathe it in and animals breathe it out. Volcanoes occasionally belch out some of it. Methane has no effect unless you ignite it. I have a basic scientific/mathematical outlook IOW, you're expressing conceit. No such thing as a "scientific/mathematical outlook". |
|
|
| (509165) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 23:45:16 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 10 20:16:50 2009. Don't forget that "global warming" and "climate change" are two vastly different things too . . . |
|
|
| (509170) | |
Re: It's official: There are too many brain leeches on Olog |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 10 23:49:03 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are too many libs on OTChat, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 23:39:49 2009.  But everyone loves hypnotoad! Now in EU-approved St Patty's green! 
|
|
|
| (509175) | |
Re: It's official: There are too many brain leeches on OTChat's libs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 23:53:05 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are too many brain leeches on Olog, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 10 23:49:03 2009. Ah, DailyKos echoes again . . . |
|
|
| (509177) | |
Re: It's official: There are too many brain leeches on OTChat's libs |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 10 23:53:47 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are too many brain leeches on OTChat's libs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 23:53:05 2009. Nope ... if Kos was involved, it would have been Shamrock Shake green. |
|
|
| (509184) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 23:57:36 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by JohnL on Sat Oct 10 20:17:42 2009. I am proposing that the theories you base your assertions on are bunk. So your synopsis is moot, since what you claim will happen won't.The whole point is that destroying our economy to cap greenhouse gases which are not heating the planet is insane at the very core of the concept. |
|
|
| (509185) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:00:01 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 20:35:13 2009. Pull me back from where?How is noting that the global temperature NOT rising since 1998 lending credence to the AGW skeptics irrational? |
|
|
| (509186) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:01:45 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 21:01:00 2009. And you dismiss it as you see it. His opinion is no less crazy than yours or mine. It simply differs, significantly. |
|
|
| (509187) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Oct 11 00:02:12 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:00:01 2009. I don't disagree with your premise, but the tone of your threads, including the titles are very reminiscent of OBS. You know an over-the-top title that isn't supported by the post within. |
|
|
| (509188) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Oct 11 00:03:54 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:01:45 2009. I only dismiss what he says about Muslims and blacks. Not that he's always wrong, but I know that he has a bias against Muslims and blacks that clouds his judgment. He does have a thing for hot Muslim chicks though! |
|
|
| (509189) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:04:35 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Easy on Sun Oct 11 00:02:12 2009. Then take issue with the style. Clearly you were taking issue with the substance.I have a provocative, confrontational personality & style. I am no diplomat. |
|
|
| (509190) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Oct 11 00:06:07 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:04:35 2009. IIRC you posted before that you don't have a confrontational style and that you prefer not to even discuss politics in person. |
|
|
| (509191) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Oct 11 00:06:25 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Easy on Sun Oct 11 00:03:54 2009. He's not biased against either group. |
|
|
| (509192) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:07:36 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Oct 10 20:38:47 2009. England will probably be too cold to inhabit by then, assuming the AGW alarmists are right. Which means that you probably won't be around to see OBS's house float away. |
|
|
| (509193) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:09:15 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 10 20:16:50 2009. This will be the new consensus within a decade or so. You can boast that you were a trend setter then. |
|
|
| (509195) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:10:52 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Easy on Sat Oct 10 20:17:39 2009. I don't think we understand enough about climate to make accurate short term predictions. Look how wrong many people were 40 years ago. We were supposed to be in a new Ice Age by now according to the prevailing theories. |
|
|
| (509197) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:13:23 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 23:45:16 2009. "Climate change" is an oxymoron. Climate, by it's definition is always changing. The idea that weather and temperatures will always remain consistently the same in whatever part of the world you live is bogus, and attempting to force it to remain the same is a exercise in futility.Remember, before 1300 the English made more wine than the French. |
|
|
| (509198) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Oct 11 00:15:43 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Oct 11 00:06:25 2009. Sure he is. Try and find one post that he's made that acknowledges anything positive about Muslims besides that some of their women are hot. He's made thousands of posts on Muslims and all of them are negative.I remember that there was a tragic accident involving a Muslim guy that worked and lived at a gas station. The guy burned to death after an explosion and his friends reported hearing his dying screams. When OBS posted about it he assumed that the guy was a terrorist and laughed in his post. So far as I know the guy was never linked to terrorism. |
|
|
| (509200) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is over |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Oct 11 00:17:07 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is over, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:10:52 2009. We know much more now than we did then. Whether we know enough to predict climate change, maybe not. But we're getting better at it I think. |
|
|
| (509305) | |
Re: It's official: There are too many neocons on OTChat |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 10:25:50 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are too many libs on OTChat, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 23:39:49 2009. Get over it: you lost. |
|
|
| (509306) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 10:27:37 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:07:36 2009. Vive la France! |
|
|
| (509307) | |
Re: It's official: There are too many libs on OTChat |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 11 11:36:35 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are too many neocons on OTChat, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 10:25:50 2009. No, everyone lost. The libs paved the way for the totalitarians to come roaring back.I don't use "neocons" anymore since I saw the pro-EU useful idiots using it. |
|
|
| (509392) | |
Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Oct 11 18:03:21 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 23:57:36 2009. No one wants to destroy our economy. Red herring. |
|
|
| (509500) | |
Re: It's official: There are too many brain leeches on OTChat's libs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 11 23:20:22 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are too many brain leeches on OTChat's libs, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 10 23:53:47 2009. You're right about that. |
|
|
| (509501) | |
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 11 23:22:00 2009, in response to Re: It's official: There are more complicated cycles than OBS can understand, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 23:57:36 2009. CH4 and CO2 are not greenhouse gases. H2O is a greenhouse gas. |
|
|
| (509810) | |
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Oct 12 22:24:02 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 11 23:22:00 2009. H2O is a greenhouse gas? It's WATER!!! Even if it's in a cloud, it's still WATER. |
|
|
| (509816) | |
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Oct 12 22:27:52 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Oct 12 22:24:02 2009. One of the reasons we haven't seen much of Olog lately is he's busy on a petition drive ...To: U.S. Congress Dihydro Monoxide (Henceforth referred to as DHM) is a compound being used in products across the globe. Though this compound is relatively safe under the right circumstances, it is one of the most common causes of death or other accidents worldwide. Though it can be used safely, it can burn skin, and is deadly if inhaled. Farmers across the nation have been using this product on crops as a growth enhancement aid, despite the fact that it can cause massive damage to the crops and even BUILDINGS, which they justify because it makes the crops that aren't destroyed significantly larger. In addition, varying amounts of DHM end up in food products. DHM is used in the processing of various non-food related products as well, because it can be used as an industrial coolant. This means a possibly deadly industrial coolant is ending up in our food products without any warning to the consumer. As of now, the government is ignoring the tremendous risks associated with DHM. It is a compound that we, the undersigned, feel should be restricted, if not banned, in this country. In addition, all products carrying DHM should bear a seal or label warning consumers of the presence of DHM in that product. Significant steps should be made to encourage farmers and manufacturers to avoid DHM, including some kind of incentive program for those who make their product DHM free. DHM is dangerous, and should be eliminated. Sincerely, The Undersigned |
|
|
| (509823) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Oct 12 22:53:03 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and "anthropogenic" same never existed, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 10 23:43:46 2009. Effects? The only effects of CO2 is that plants breathe it in and animals breathe it out. Volcanoes occasionally belch out some of it. Methane has no effect unless you ignite it.We've been over this. You have demonstrated zero familiarity with what is and what is not a greenhouse gas or their effects. Venus, with less surface solar radiation than is found in Earth orbit, has a temperature far higher at the surface than Mercury experiences because of its carbon dioxide atmosphere. Methane, carbon dioxide, sulfur hexaflouride, and many other possible industrial emissions all emit infrared radiation when they absorb visible light, and all are produced on an annual basis in quantities far larger than natural emissions from intermittant cataclysmic events. |
|
|
| (509829) | |
Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 12 23:36:43 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed, posted by WillD on Mon Oct 12 22:53:03 2009. You have demonstrated zero familiarity with what is and what is not a greenhouse gas or their effectsRather, you have. Furthermore, you have zero familiarity with the lack of scientific credibility of the IPCC. Venus, with less surface solar radiation than is found in Earth orbit, has a temperature far higher at the surface than Mercury experiences because of its carbon dioxide atmosphere We have indeed been over this. Venus is 0.815 times the mass of Earth whereas Mercury is 0.055 times the mass of Earth. Not only a lot more surface area, but a lot more mass too. Sweet F.A. to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. Now are you going to compare apples to oranges for your next trick . . . ? Methane, carbon dioxide, sulfur hexaflouride, and many other possible industrial emissions all emit infrared radiation when they absorb visible light, and all are produced on an annual basis in quantities far larger than natural emissions from intermittant cataclysmic events. That's an assumption, not a scientific fact. The only honest word there is "possible", which still allows for "impossible". The IPCC's BS "global warming potential" is thoroughly unscientific (based on CO2 when that gas' greenhouse effect isn't even established). Try studying science for once and you might get a sense of their dishonesty. Water vapor consists of over 95 percent of the so-called "greenhouse effect" that doesn't exist (using IPCC sophistry). (SF6?? Concentration in the atmosphere is so low, it's almost undetectable.) And the earth is still cooling . . . |
|
|
| (509830) | |
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 12 23:40:36 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon Oct 12 22:24:02 2009. Flunked chemistry class? All matter can undergo phase change. Even metals can have a gas phase. You wouldn't have metallized plastic film without gaseous aluminum.You know what dry ice is? Frozen carbon dioxide. Even though it looks like water ice, it's still CO2. The only greenhouse gas in existence powered the railroads for 150 years. (Yes, steam.) |
|
|
| (509832) | |
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 12 23:41:45 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Oct 12 22:27:52 2009. You didn't do it as well as Penn & Teller. |
|
|
| (509838) | |
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Oct 12 23:56:33 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 12 23:41:45 2009. If I do the lines, do you agree to remain silent? :) |
|
|
| (509852) | |
Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Oct 13 00:12:23 2009, in response to Re: Official per BBC: Global Warming is Dead, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Oct 12 23:56:33 2009. I cannot answer that question. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|