General Climate Discussion

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Hortlund


Again you lie. You f ucking dishonest scum.


Global temperatures in 2003 were 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the long-term (1880-2003) average**, ranking 2003 the second warmest year on record, which tied 2002. The warmest year on record is 1998 with an anomaly of +0.63°C (+1.13°F). Land temperatures in 2003 were 0.83°C (1.50°F) above average, ranking third in the period of record while ocean temperatures ranked as second warmest with 0.44°C (0.80°F) above the 1880-2003 mean.


Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record worldwide.[1] For people living in the Northern Hemisphere—most of the world's population—2005 was the hottest year on record since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide.




When are you going to stop with the lies? When is enough enough? If you are going to be in the discussion, then at least do us the f ucking courtesy of NOT JUST MAKING S HIT UP TO FIT YOUR AGENDA. You worthless f uck.


This chart shows the latest figures (it goes up to 2006)

(Image removed from quote.) [/B]

Listen Hort... chill out.  Making an enemy is costly.  But, making an enemy a friend is priceless.  He has just as much a right to his opinion, free of name calling, as you do.

I feel your pain.  It is difficult to express without losing your own control.  I may disagree vehemently with folks on this board, such as Lasz, who consistently mocks science in general.  He thinks I look down upon him, but has yet to realize that that is only his own internal fear that he IS wrong.  Some of the posters on this board haven't had formal education, don't know what a molecule is... don't know how to figure out molar weight and such.  It is very difficult to explain science to the layman..... just relax, and hope that someday some of these folks will actually read a book that isn't paint by numbers.

[Hortlund]

*sigh* you are right ofcource. Its just the immense frustration coming from trying to talk to someone who
1) doesnt understand what you are saying
2) doesnt want to understand what you are saying
3) repeat statements over and over again despite the fact that you have proved them wrong, often repeatedly
4) copy/paste from random webpages without understanding what it is they are copy/pasting in the first place
5) grab talking points from horribly biased websites and present it as gospel, while demanding extraordinary level of proof for your statements


"So you linked to a peer-reviewed article published in science magazine that says the solar output has been decreasing? That doesnt count, because I copy/pasted something from Conservatives for America (funded by Exxon), written by a lobbyist who says all the scientists are wrong...(and communists). Its the sun stupid."

Try to argue with that guy when he repeats the same debunked lie over and over and over again, like a deaf parrot on steroids.

[Angus]

deaf parrot on steroids

You have made my morning better

[AKH]

Originally posted by Hortlund
"So you linked to a peer-reviewed article published in science magazine that says the solar output has been decreasing? That doesnt count, because I copy/pasted something from Conservatives for America (funded by Exxon), written by a lobbyist who says all the scientists are wrong...(and communists). Its the sun stupid."

Not enough... ellipses...you...can...never. ..have...enough...ellipses...

Link for Lazs

[Louis XVII]

Moray - thank you for your kind words! I've always been interested in Chemistry...

Originally posted by MORAY37
Some of the posters on this board haven't had formal education, don't know what a molecule is... don't know how to figure out molar weight and such.  It is very difficult to explain science to the layman.....  

While we're here waiting for Lazs to come back and tell us that it's the sun stupid, perhaps we can have our own discussion about molar weights. As I recall, by understanding atomic/molecular weights  it is possible to measure accurately the proportions of substances for a particular chemical reaction. Eg. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12,  Oxygen has an atomic weight of 8 (and therefore O2 has a molecular weight of 16) and from this we know that 12 grams of carbon would combine with 16 grams of oxygen to form a molecule of CO2. I seem to remember that one MOLE of an element is a quantity whose weight in grams is equal to its atomic weight, ie one mole of carbon = 12 grams.

If you could provide further enlightenment, I would be delighted to take the opportunity to further my education on this subject.

[Angus]

Ah, moles, yes. Good to freshen that one up, didn't do molar calculations for more than 20 years.
BTW, I almost went deep into biology, ended up studying English, got sick of it and turned to agriculture. And agricultural education is actually a good place to spot GW from, as well as it concequences. Sometimes I show my buddys posts from these threads, and they have a good laugh then Guess who's posts they're reading

[lazs2]

LOl.. this is funny..  I am not saying anthing.. my education or lack of is not the issue.. you are not trying to disprove me with your pitiful educations but the scientists I link to.    the thousands of scientists who have more education and experiance than all of you combined who say that co2 numbers do not add up.

So now it is the ocean will...  "algae in the oceans are responsible for generating around 70% of the oxygen found in the atmosphere. Clearly it would be a very bad thing for CO2 emissions to be allowed to rise, unchecked, and then to expect the oceans to somehow soak it all up. That risks tampering with the earth's delicate ecosystem, and the habitat of many microorganisms responsible for sustaining all life on earth including the algae that generate 70% of the atmosphere's oxygen. Of course, not everyone here would believe Attenborough's explanation of the effect of algae on our atmosphere.... ."

more scare tactics with no numbers.. the poor delicate ocean will not be able to absorb the co2?    It has in the past... more than we have now...  the "risks" and "clearly it would be a bad thing" and "risks tampering"

I think I can understand all those "scientific" terms quite well thank you... no numbers... no proof.. just scare tactics... it is like the hydra (to quote tigress) every time one of your pet theories is questioned you drop it and make some other huge and undocumented claim.

And moray... if you are quoting... you should get current.. you quoted that 2005 was the record with 98...  the new data says 1935 was the hottest..

But.. I will play.. The way we play now is.. one year increments?  if it is cold for one year.. end of problem?    I said the average for seven years was down... one might be up but others are down..

course.. the margin of error is higher than all the charts any of us have shown but.. that is just a detail.


So what bad has happened?   crop production is up.   less people are dieing because of the weather.. freezing to death has always been the worst of heat/freeze so far as death toll.

What bad has happened?   why won't the oceans absorb co2 anymore?  they did in the past.  what are the frigging numbers?  

"it could be a very bad thing" is not enough for me to get shook up about.

And.. if you guys are so upset about man made greenhouse gas supposed global warming... petition to stop everyone from eating meat... put out the coal fires that are raging around the world and then get back to me.

Do the big easy stuff first.

lazs

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
LOl.. this is funny..  I am not saying anthing.. my education or lack of is not the issue..

[/b]
Oh, but your lack of education is at the very heart of this issue.

Allow me to demonstrate why.

more scare tactics with no numbers.. the poor delicate ocean will not be able to absorb the co2?    It has in the past... more than we have now...  the "risks" and "clearly it would be a bad thing" and "risks tampering"

Here we have an excellent example on why lack of education or understanding can lead to grave missunderstandings and a general inability to understand the severity of a situation.

Your words, to someone with half a brain/education, are like beacons of stupidity. "Why should the ocean not be able to absorb the co2...it has in the past". That comment is so insanely stupid it is actually painful to read it.

I invite you to open a lexicon and turn to the word "saturation".

Oh, heck I know that is too complex for you, let me quote the relevant passage for you.

saturation

In physical chemistry, saturation is the point at which a solution of a substance can dissolve no more of that substance and additional amounts of that substance will appear as a precipitate.

This point of maximum concentration, the saturation point, depends on the temperature of the liquid as well as the chemical nature of the substances involved.

Saturated
(chemistry, of a solution) Containing all the solute that can normally be dissolved at a given temperature.


Now, with that in mind...what could this possibly have to do with the oceans and co2? Hm, I fear this might still be too complex. How about if we try this. Have you ever had a cup of coffee? If you pour a tablespoon of sugar into the cup...what happens? The sugar dissapears...right? Its like magic...the sugar dissapears and the coffee tastes sweeter. Magic.

Anyway, if you pour another spoonful of sugar into the coffee...what happens? Again the sugar dissappears! Cool!

Ok, so what happens if you pour 15 more spoons full of sugar into the coffee? Hm...the magic doesnt seem to work anymore. There is a thick layer of sugar at the bottom of the cup...isnt there? OMG WE BROKE THE COFFEE-MAGIC -I hear you cry. But relax dear lasz...the coffee magic is not broken, you can pour another spoon of sugar into another cup of coffee and it will vanish again. What happened was that the first cup of coffee became saturated with sugar. Meaning that the coffee could not dissolve the sugar anymore...because too much sugar had been added to the coffee.

Now, try this mental excercise. Pretend the coffee is the ocean, and the sugar is co2. Now...what do you think this could mean?

(backs away slowly in case of a head-explosion)

[john9001]

ahh, if we put 15 spoon fulls of sugar in the ocean it will explode?

[AKIron]

It seems to me that people who go on and on about their superior education are usually insecure about their intelligence. When the same people berate others for their lack of education it's a good indicator of a lack of intelligence on their part.

[MajIssue]

Originally posted by Hortlund

Oh, but your lack of education is at the very heart of this issue.

Allow me to demonstrate why.

 

Here we have an excellent example on why lack of education or understanding can lead to grave missunderstandings and a general inability to understand the severity of a situation.

Your words, to someone with half a brain/education, are like beacons of stupidity. "Why should the ocean not be able to absorb the co2...it has in the past". That comment is so insanely stupid it is actually painful to read it.

I invite you to open a lexicon and turn to the word "saturation".

Oh, heck I know that is too complex for you, let me quote the relevant passage for you.

saturation

In physical chemistry, saturation is the point at which a solution of a substance can dissolve no more of that substance and additional amounts of that substance will appear as a precipitate.

This point of maximum concentration, the saturation point, depends on the temperature of the liquid as well as the chemical nature of the substances involved.

Saturated
(chemistry, of a solution) Containing all the solute that can normally be dissolved at a given temperature.


Now, with that in mind...what could this possibly have to do with the oceans and co2? Hm, I fear this might still be too complex. How about if we try this. Have you ever had a cup of coffee? If you pour a tablespoon of sugar into the cup...what happens? The sugar dissapears...right? Its like magic...the sugar dissapears and the coffee tastes sweeter. Magic.

Anyway, if you pour another spoonful of sugar into the coffee...what happens? Again the sugar dissappears! Cool!

Ok, so what happens if you pour 15 more spoons full of sugar into the coffee? Hm...the magic doesnt seem to work anymore. There is a thick layer of sugar at the bottom of the cup...isnt there? OMG WE BROKE THE COFFEE-MAGIC -I hear you cry. But relax dear lasz...the coffee magic is not broken, you can pour another spoon of sugar into another cup of coffee and it will vanish again. What happened was that the first cup of coffee became saturated with sugar. Meaning that the coffee could not dissolve the sugar anymore...because too much sugar had been added to the coffee.

Now, try this mental excercise. Pretend the coffee is the ocean, and the sugar is co2. Now...what do you think this could mean?

(backs away slowly in case of a head-explosion) [/B]

Hortland you remind me of Jethro Bodine on the old Beverly Hillbillies TV sitcom bragging about his 6th grade education... gonna do some more cipherin' for us? How 'bout some gozintus? It is fool hardy to attack a stranger's academic bona fides as you really don't know whom you are attacking. It is sad to see that you have absolutely NO CLUE and a re willing to accept as truth, dubious "facts" that are a result of the thinnist of datasets! Wanna buy some carbon credits? Don't worry about your head exploding my poor misguided simpleton... nothing can burn in a vacum!:lol

[Hortlund]

LOL wtf is this? The three stooges?

1) I dont understand jack s hit of this, so I try to say something funny.

2) You think you are so smart, but I think I am smarter...because when you say something smart, I think that means you are insecure about your intelligence.

3) I dont know how to counter that argument, so I'll talk about something completely irrelevant for a while and throw in a couple of insults.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL wtf is this? The three stooges?

1) I dont understand jack s hit of this, so I try to say something funny.

2) You think you are so smart, but I think I am smarter...because when you say something smart, I think that means you are insecure about your intelligence.

3) I dont know how to counter that argument, so I'll talk about something completely irrelevant for a while and throw in a couple of insults.

What I wrote isn't that difficult to understand. I'm begining to doubt you actually achieved the level of education you keep harping on.

[Louis XVII]

Originally posted by lazs2
more scare tactics with no numbers.. the poor delicate ocean will not be able to absorb the co2?    It has in the past... more than we have now...  the "risks" and "clearly it would be a bad thing" and "risks tampering"

 Scare tactics? Don't think so. And what are you talking about, no numbers? I said 70% of the atmosphere's oxygen was created by algae in the oceans. Last time I checked, 70 was a number. Try again Lazs. Hortlund is right - education!

The rest of the statement doesn't need "numbers". We don't need to know exactly how many pentiillion algae are in the oceans for DA's statement to hold true. We don't need to know precisely how many molecules of oxygen each will produce. And even if we did, we wouldn't have a name for that number, and would have to use E-numbers to express it.. Besides, we don't want to tax your already overstretched mental faculties.

If someone sets fire to your house, it burns down. No "numbers" required for that simple fact.  Hope this helps.

[AKIron]

I have to say, our educational system, in the US anyhow, is more about  indoctrination than education. Some posters here are reinforcing my opinion in this.