[Zipperfish]

Annihilator Annihilator:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But I have. There are indeed thousands of variables involved and yet here I am predicting it's going to warmer in July than November.

No you haven't. You made some about next summer, not about how it will be in a hundred years.

Are you serious? It is easy to assume that it will be warmer in the summer because it happens ALL THE FUCKING time and has happened MANY TIMES BEFORE. That's the only reason you can predict it.

Man-made global warming has NEVER HAPPENED before and we don't even know if it is happening right now. So there is absolutely no statistic that can make you predict this because it NEVER HAPPEND.

Never happened? Only thousands upon thousands of times has carbon dioxide been shown to be a greenhouse gas in experiments the world over. So if there is a significantly higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now, why are you saying that it is not warming the atmosphere? Why isn't it? Is the CO2 not reflecting infrared radiation back toward the planet? Does the infrared radiation magically disappear? because if there's a lot more CO2 and no change in temperature that--from a physics perspective--is as strange as a colder July than November.

$1:

So now who's right? We have the same "proofs" (which is that we know that summer is hotter than winter), but when using this proof to predict the future we come to different conclusions. OMG WHATS HAPPENING?

There's no proofs in natural science. There will always be uncertainties. If you want certainty, try religion.

$1:

If you don't understand by now that being able to predict that summer is hotter than winter doesn't make you a fucking global wheather psychic, whether you don't want to listen or you're really dumb.

You got me on that one--I'm dumb as a post!

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You're being silly (also sounding a little desperate). It's cute though. I enjoy it when you guys run out of actual arguments, and have to rely on nonsensical little mini-rants based on intentionally twisted misquotes for substance. It makes me smile.

Nice concession speech. I'd say that now you've resorted to personal attacks, you've pretty much thrown in the towel. Hey, thanks for playing though.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You're being silly (also sounding a little desperate). It's cute though. I enjoy it when you guys run out of actual arguments, and have to rely on nonsensical little mini-rants based on intentionally twisted misquotes for substance. It makes me smile.

Nice concession speech. I'd say that now you've resorted to personal attacks, you've pretty much thrown in the towel. Hey, thanks for playing though.

Alarmist dumb argument trick # 12 - Pick a fight with silly insinuations, and misquotes, then when destroyed with a counter-attack, whine, and call foul. Claim the high ground.

often combined with...

Alarmist dumb argument trick # 13 - Claim you've won. Assume observers are too dumb to know such claims are an admission you're getting your ass handed to you.

Seriously man, stop trying to sound clever. You're not good at it. If you have anything like a real point with something at least resembling support though, I'd love to hear it.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Alarmist dumb argument trick # 13 - Claim you're winning. Assume observers are too dumb to know such claims are an admission you're getting your ass handed to you.

Alarmist? This coming from Mr "The UN is using global warming to take over the worrrrrrld!!!!" Good one.

Had you actually addressed any of the points, I suppose an observer my come to that conclusion. Instead, you went all Glenn Beck.

Cheers though!

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Seriously man, stop trying to sound clever. You`re not good at it. If you have anything like a real point with something at least resembling support though, I'd love to hear it.

It`s coming up with this stuff myself. I`m just agreeing with what the vast majority of scientists conducting research in relevant fields are saying.

I did actually have a real point with the averages, but it is rather abstruse, and I have neither the patience nor the wherewithal to enlighten you on the subject right now.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Alarmist? This coming from Mr "The UN is using global warming to take over the worrrrrrld!!!!" Good one.

Alarmist dumb argument trick # 13 - Once insinuations and false, or unsupportable claims fail, misdirect argument to another subject.

But you know what? I'm dumb enough to bite. I'll go there.

Are you saying there is not a document waiting to be considered, then hopefully signed by all nations attending at the Copenhagen talks which spells out not only what will be governed by a world body (most likely the UN), but how it will be enforced?

Because if such a document does exist it's not alarmism, or paranoia to say it does. It's simply a matter of "Look, there it is".

Would you like to see it?

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But you know what, I'm dumb enough to bite. I'll go there.

Are you saying there is not an document waiting to be considered, then hopefully signed by all nations attending at the Copenhagen talks which spells out not only what will be governed by a world body (most likely the UN), but how it will be enforced?

Because if such a document does exist it's not alarmism, or paranoia to say it does. It's simply a matter of "Look, there it is".

Would you like to see it?

What? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Copenhagen is dead before anyone has even arrived--I'll put another case of beer on that. Red Stripe this time. The UN is a toothless bunch of self-important bureaucrats. At least when Copenhagen dies, we can move on to adaptation and do away with these pie-in-the-sky international agreements.

Edit:

But yes, I`d like to see it.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

[ I`m just agreeing with what the vast majority of scientists conducting research in relevant fields are saying.

Sorry Bud, that one doesn't fly anymore. There's too much evidence to the contrary. The curtain has been pulled back on that one too.

It turns out Richard Lindzen was right in that paper I linked you to where he explained how the policy statements of Scientific societies are actually only the claims of a small group of individuals who maneuvered themselves into the upper administration. They do not, nor have they ever represented the opinion of the larger rank and file membership of scientists.

The most recent example is this one from the American Physical Society where 160 member scientists including a nobel prize winner insisted the policy statement be changed

$1:

However, the petition’s signatories claim that “measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20–21st century changes [in climate] are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today”. They say that various natural processes, such as ocean cycles and solar variability, could account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries.

“Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate,” the petition concludes. It also points to “extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals”.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/13/a ... hysicists/

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Sorry Bud, that one doesn't fly anymore. There's too much evidence to the contrary. The curtain has been pulled back on that one too.

It turns out Richard Lindzen was right in that paper I linked you to where he explained how the policy statements of Scientific societies are actually only the claims of a small group of individuals who maneuvered themselves into the upper administration. They do not, nor have they ever represented the opinion of the larger rank and file membership of scientists.

The most recent example is this one from the American Physical Society where 160 member scientists including a nobel prize winner insisted the policy statement be changed

$1:

However, the petition’s signatories claim that “measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20–21st century changes [in climate] are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today”. They say that various natural processes, such as ocean cycles and solar variability, could account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries.

“Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate,” the petition concludes. It also points to “extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals”.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/13/a ... hysicists/

I happen to think that Richard Lindzen is right, for the most part. He agrees that the planet has warmed over the last century, and he agrees that at least a part of it is anthropogenic. We agree on out scepticism of positive feedback loops (a climate sensitivity coefficient much greater than 1). We disagree on the contribution of anthrpogenic CO2 to the tmerpature rise over the last century; I think it`s greater than he does.

You`re not going to find many scientists who will say that doubling CO2 won`t heat the atmosphere around 1 deg C.

As for those physics guys--pretty good at physics, not so good at ecology. ”Beneficial” is not a scientific term. Cancer is beneficial--to cancer cells. A warming climate is beneficial to pine beetles in BC. Saying something is beneficial in an ecosystem doesn`t make much sense.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Copenhagen is dead before anyone has even arrived--I'll put another case of beer on that. Red Stripe this time. The UN is a toothless bunch of self-important bureaucrats. At least when Copenhagen dies, we can move on to adaptation and do away with these pie-in-the-sky international agreements.

Edit:

But yes, I`d like to see it.

I'll just link you to Watts. You can link to the actual Copenhagen treaty from there. It's in PDF though, and it killed my browser, so if you decide to download the whole thing it's at your own risk.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/t ... y-penalty/

If you should decide to download it, check out this one...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/there-may- ... enhagen/2/

They'll show where to look for the global governance talk.

Here's another one from the Wall Street Journal

But yeah, I agree, Copenhagen is, if not dead, at least postponed. In fact the delay is already in the works. Nevertheless a world governance of climate was on Copenhagen's wish list. It's there. I'm thinking the main stumbling block right now is Obama's inability to get the American people online with his schemes and dreams of big government control of anything energy related.

Would the participating countries ever sign something like the Copenhagen treaty? I don't know, but they did (with the exception of America) sign Kyoto, and this agreement was supposed to be the successor to Kyoto.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You`re not going to find many scientists who will say that doubling CO2 won`t heat the atmosphere around 1 deg C.

That's true. I think that's the official IPCC estimate without feedbacks. It's also no big deal. There's no problem with 1 degree of warming over a century. If you judge by this last bump in CO2, there will be more plant life. Fewer people will starve. Deserts will continue to shrink. No big problems. The catastrophe talk doesn't start until you start postulating something like positive feedback creating 3 degrees per doubling.

I've heard Lindzen talk like he doesn't have a problem with 1 degree of warming per doubling either. I think you're maybe confusing that with what he was saying in his climate sensitivity study regarding the ERBE measurements. With that I think he was saying the real world measurement was .5 degrees of sensitivity, or something. I forget exactly how it went. I'm pretty sure I have a link to a radio interview with him on that if you'd like a listen.

It's important with that sensitivity study though to remember he says more data is required to get a fuller picture. I do remember that much.

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You got me on that one--I'm dumb as a post!

The biggest grain of truth in this entire thread.

[Annihilator]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Annihilator Annihilator:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But I have. There are indeed thousands of variables involved and yet here I am predicting it's going to warmer in July than November.

No you haven't. You made some about next summer, not about how it will be in a hundred years.

Are you serious? It is easy to assume that it will be warmer in the summer because it happens ALL THE FUCKING time and has happened MANY TIMES BEFORE. That's the only reason you can predict it.

Man-made global warming has NEVER HAPPENED before and we don't even know if it is happening right now. So there is absolutely no statistic that can make you predict this because it NEVER HAPPEND.

Never happened? Only thousands upon thousands of times has carbon dioxide been shown to be a greenhouse gas in experiments the world over. So if there is a significantly higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now, why are you saying that it is not warming the atmosphere? Why isn't it? Is the CO2 not reflecting infrared radiation back toward the planet? Does the infrared radiation magically disappear? because if there's a lot more CO2 and no change in temperature that--from a physics perspective--is as strange as a colder July than November.

Nope, it has never happened before, because the simple experience of CO2 making air warmer is not sufficient proof to create a correlation between man-made gas and global temperature. It is so because CO2 emission is only one tiny factor in the whole equation.

Basically, you're butchering science. You refuse to aknowledge that the question might be a little more complex than 2+2 and use little elements with very little effects on the question to create your theories. If you want to prove that global warming is inevitable you better come up with a better proof, but this proof doesn't exist because the whole scientific community isn't sure about the question and is still gathering data.

[Proculation]

Kyoto is a big socialist scheme. -Stephen Harper !

The neo-marxists only changed their name to "environmentalists".

[ShepherdsDog]

They all believe in fairy tales to an extent.