General Climate Discussion

[lazs2]

yeah moray..  they plug the data into tree rings and predict the future?  

The tree rings and ice cores and such prove my point not yours..  they indicate that the climate changes without us.  that it has forever.

You don't think that without people the climate would stay on some even keel year after year after year do you?  

The data you cite all proves that it does not.   the computer models which... even you are a little ashamed of it seems... they are the only things that they alarmists are using to predict 50 years into the future.    not next year mind you.. not 5 years.. nothing that can be checked...

but.. moray.. be honest..  do you think that we are causing catastrophic global warming with our contribution to co2?  and...

Do you think that we can avert this coming end of the world scenario if we all just suffer a bit now and spend a few dozen trillions of dollars and live like your-0-peeeans and reduce mans contribution by... oh... 30%   or will we have to make even more draconian cuts?

And...  lastly... if we go into a cooling period and it looks like we may cool 4 degrees in 100 years... thereby killing millions...  what would you suggest we do then?

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Jackal1
LMAO
You have just about described the trend in of the Global war..........ummmm Climate Change predictions, recants, readjusting, repredicitng, false data, changing again, reverifying then , falling off the wagon to date.
It has gotten to the point of hilarity in the scientific postering concerning the Iceage predictions in some scientific community statements that it is claimed there were never any published papers to begin with. ("Those calculations were never done by the scientific community. They may have been a group of scientist........errrr Ummmm nevermind. It never happened."

View the future of Global Warm..............errrrr Climate Change.

Did you read their paper?  I did.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2



but.. moray.. be honest..  do you think that we are causing catastrophic global warming with our contribution to co2?  and...





lazs

Laz... keep asking the same question and I'll keep answering the same.. YES.

How dense are you?  Repetitive statements, blatantly false...you consistently spout like a hydrant.  You read every word I type and twist meanings of anything I say, and yet can't seem to understand the damn word YES.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The definition of an adiabatic process is one for which no heat is gained or lost.  No heat transfer occurs.

If heat is gained or lost, then the process is not adiabatic.

I have a flaw in my character where I am compelled to point out stupid statements.

Yours qualified.

I predict you will attempt to defend your statement.  Let's see if my clairvoyant powers are still intact.

They're not.  I over debating with someone who can't understand english, and feels compelled to debate the smallest point he can possibly find.  Of course, this can be expected from an anally retentive engineer type, who thinks his sht doesn't stink.  Your personal attacks notwithstanding, I feel sorry for your girlfriend... because you're obviously way too into yourself.

I'm not defending anything.  You win... It's just not worth the effort, debating with a stick in the mud.

 And I'm over you....Words I'm sure you've heard before.

[lazs2]

Ok.. so you do believe that our contribution to co2 is causing a catastrophic increase in the "greenhouse effect" and thus will..  in so many (undisclosed but many decades from now) years will be unbearable.

ok... so then answer the other two questions...

Do you think that us eliminating (or vainly trying to eliminate) even as much as 30% of OUR contribution to co2... at a cost of dozens of trillions of dollars.. do you think that will stop this catastrophy and save the planet from broiling in it's own juices?

and... lastly... what if we go into a natural cooling cycle.. what if it swings the cooling trend to a catastropic 4 degrees colder?   what do you suggest we do then?

I know I said lastly but... how much do you think the temp will rise (if everything else remains the same and mother nature just stops doing anything)  how much will the temp rise in 50 years if we do nothing.

and.. the 30% thing..  the reduction... how much do you think that will reduce the temp that would have happened by say 2050?  or is 2050 too close.. do you need to use 2100 just in case anyone who reads this is still alive in 2050?

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. so you do believe that our contribution to co2 is causing a catastrophic increase in the "greenhouse effect" and thus will..  in so many (undisclosed but many decades from now) years will be unbearable.

ok... so then answer the other two questions...

Do you think that us eliminating (or vainly trying to eliminate) even as much as 30% of OUR contribution to co2... at a cost of dozens of trillions of dollars.. do you think that will stop this catastrophy and save the planet from broiling in it's own juices?

and... lastly... what if we go into a natural cooling cycle.. what if it swings the cooling trend to a catastropic 4 degrees colder?   what do you suggest we do then?

I know I said lastly but... how much do you think the temp will rise (if everything else remains the same and mother nature just stops doing anything)  how much will the temp rise in 50 years if we do nothing.

and.. the 30% thing..  the reduction... how much do you think that will reduce the temp that would have happened by say 2050?  or is 2050 too close.. do you need to use 2100 just in case anyone who reads this is still alive in 2050?

lazs

Laz... it appears from your answer that you are basically just saying "whatever, it's just not worth my SUV in any case."

As I've said before... I already think that it's too late... mostly because people such as yourself bury your heads in the sand and the whole matter became political, rather than scientific.  Whether or not CO2 kills us by climate change or by ocean acidification.... it doesn't matter.  It's goin to thin the herd.... by our own making.

CO2 may make plants grow better, but our chainsaws cut them down faster than they can grow.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Did you read their paper?  I did.

Did you not read what I posted or just not understand it?

[AKH]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Did you not read what I posted or just not understand it?

I imagine that few other than yourself actually understood your post.  Please try to be more coherent in future.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by AKH
I imagine that few other than yourself actually understood your post.  Please try to be more coherent in future.

Your imagination issues are your`s to enjoy as you wish.
It was pretty straight forward, but I will simplify it for you as requested.

The Iceage theory was published, theorized to some extent, then simplified as "climate change". In the end it has been argued over, denied, rehashed and as you have seen here in some cases, denied by some as ever existing period.
Global Warming------------>to Global climate change. ( here it is called CYA)
In between those steps, it has been published, proven innacurate, changed repeatedly to suit the predictions of the day. The same path that will lead to the same destination.

If that doesn`t do it......Both are huge loads of horse droppings.

[AKH]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Your imagination issues are your`s to enjoy as you wish.
It was pretty straight forward, but I will simplify it for you as requested.

I didn't request simplification, just straightforward English in preference to the rambling gibberish that you posted.

A New Ice Age
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
They're not.  I over debating with someone who can't understand english, and feels compelled to debate the smallest point he can possibly find.  Of course, this can be expected from an anally retentive engineer type, who thinks his sht doesn't stink.  Your personal attacks notwithstanding, I feel sorry for your girlfriend... because you're obviously way too into yourself.

I'm not defending anything.  You win... It's just not worth the effort, debating with a stick in the mud.

And I'm over you....Words I'm sure you've heard before.

Wow...

the old I'm taking my ball and going home trick...

I did not attack you personally, I said your statement was stupid.
You may wish to look over your post that this one is responding to and see who is personally attacking whom.

Saying something is partially adiabatic is like saying the Titanic was partially unsinkable.

If you want to get all hot and bothered about that, be my guest.

[lazs2]

The man made global warming drama queens are VERY sensitive.. you should watch the robert kennedy interview or listen to that big baby former commie leader balling like a baby at the bali freakshow.

They are smug until challenged then they cry like babies and try to shut the opposition up.. shout em down.

It feels just like it did watching the hippies in the 60's and 70's.. same damn thing.. same damn people too.  

lazs

[lazs2]

butt mode for a few months... will the drama queen alarmists make the not so subtle shift from "man made global warming" to "man made global climate change" or some such?

I mean.. to tell people paying  about 50% more for heating oil right now and freezing their butt off that they need to spend another buck and a half a gallon or more and send it to some rich politician to end "global warming".... well..

That is gonna be a hard sell..  So now it's.. too cold?  mans fault..give us money... too hot?   mans fault..give us more of your money.. too little rain? too much rain?  all mans fault... send us more money to jet around and be on TV with...

Make everyone think that the weather never had extremes from one year to another.. that mother nature will just give us some level temp year round and never change if it weren't for us nasty old humans.  

When they are cold tell em you can make em hot if they....  give up their freedom and money to the gods...

When they are too hot.. tell em you can make em cold...

People are pretty damn dumb but I can't help thinking they will wake up to this scam.

lazs

[AKIron]

At least snake oil had liker in it.

[Chairboy]

So...  to start with, I'm not convinced yet about global warming, but I think your post is a bit disingenuous, lazs.  The global warming folks have described the 'hard winters' as one of the symptoms of the climate change.  Where you seem to be assuming that it's a straight 3-4 degree raise, they usually describe something more like a pendulum, where the summers are hotter, then the winters are colder, oscillating back and forth.  

So...  there are far better arguments to use in criticism of global warming, using one as weak as this just gives more ammo to that crowd (along the lines of "See, they don't even understand what we're arguing, how can you trust their suppositions if they don't even understand the material?").  Unless you're actually a global warming advocate, of course, and trying to use reverse psychology.  But that'd just be silly.