[MB.]

What is wrong with your brains? Did you ever study climate in college? High-school? Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?

[Wolfman]

I didn't have to take any climate related classes in high school (and none were offered, as far as I'm aware). However, I'm taking an intro to geography class at the moment.

[MB.]

Are you a proponent of the man made global warming climate change hoax?

[Wolfman]

I'm neutral. I was just saying I never had to take such a class in high school.

[MB.]

Pretty typical, I guess. What, if anything, has your formal education taught you about the environment, if I may be so bold as to press.

[Wolfman]

NP.

There is definitely a 'global warming', however it's mostly in the upper layers of the atmosphere, which means the lower layers are going to be subject to more violent swings in the weather we feel. Which explains the increases in tornado's, hurricanes, and why the Midwest has been getting pounded with snow. As for the cause, it's probably a natural cycle of global climate change, but our actions are probably encouraging the situation.

[MB.]

it's probably a natural cycle of global climate change

Are you aware of the factors involved in this natural cycle?

but our actions are probably encouraging the situation.

Can you elaborate on what actions you are referring to? Presumably carbondioxcide pollution? Or were you being intentionally vague?

however it's mostly in the upper layers of the atmosphere

Do you know how this works? How did it happen?

[Wolfman]

Are you aware of the factors involved in this natural cycle?

Not really, Just that this kind of thing happens every few thousand years.

Can you elaborate on what actions you are referring to? Presumably carbondioxcide pollution? Or were you being intentionally vague?

Yes and no. CO2 is one of the various green house gases. There's also Oxides of Nitrogen and water vapor. All are given off by humans constantly. This is causing a thickening of the atmosphere's denser layers, which could be dealt with (in theory), however, tree lose makes it less likely for that to happen.

Do you know how this works? How did it happen?

I'm not sure what you're asking me.

[Huntster]

People who think a cooling climate negates 'global warming'

What is wrong with your brains? Did you ever study climate in college?

Actually, my brain works well. While I did not study meteorology in college, I was quite proficient at English comp. But I learned the difference in the words "cool" and "warm" in, perhaps, the first grade of elementary school.

It was in college when I studied advertising, though, and it's close cousin; propaganda.

You?

Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?

Yes. In a nutshell, cooling means lower temps. Warming means higher temps.

But that's only to people after the 1st grade of elementary school and people grounded in reality. To environmental kool-aid connoisseurs, those words (and all others) mean whatever they wish them to mean.

[Galoredk]

I have always wanted to know the correct (ideal) average temperature for Earth. Would you like to provide me with it?

[El Gilroy]

While I will at no point condone the crimes of capitalism against the earth's resources, ecosystems, atmosphere or inhabitants, I do hereby declare that I favour a "wear a hat"-approach over the not at all hysterical "omigod omigod MUST NOT MAKE CO2!!!11".

[grypo]

Yes and no. CO2 is one of the various green house gases. There's also Oxides of Nitrogen and water vapor. All are given off by humans constantly. This is causing a thickening of the atmosphere's denser layers, which could be dealt with (in theory)

In regards to finding the causes to GW, it is important to know which gases are growing and why. Water vapor is a gas that responds to temperature and has a convergent feedback. Clouds (which also have cooling effects) and evaporated H2O do not remain in the atmosphere for more than a few weeks and do not have the same absorbing-emitting properties as CO2 in the troposphere.

however, tree lose makes it less likely for that to happen.

Actually, some good evidence suggests that the ability of the Earth to sink CO2 through plants and the ocean has not changed in the past 150 years to any significant degree (some evidence suggests a small decrease in the ability to sink CO2). This, of course, does not mean that the CO2 is not rising because no one disputes that, only that the percentage taken back by the Earth has not changed.

[david_rockafeller]

im confused

so when all of britian is covered in snow... it is actually hot?

so when i wanna warm up a corndog i put it in the freezer? instead of the oven? im so lost.

[Wolfman]

Actually, some good evidence suggests that the ability of the Earth to sink CO2 through plants and the ocean has not changed in the past 150 years to any significant degree

But what about before that? We've been around for tens of thousands of years.

[grypo]

But what about before that? We've been around for tens of thousands of years.

That was studied to see if man-made co2 (last 150 years) was causing the Earth's ability to sink carbon to decrease, which would be alarming, but no significant decrease was found, which is a good thing. Over tens of thousands of years, the reasons for co2 increase and temperature change has been different than now, changing on different trend timelines. What it comes down to is natural climate change is one studied phenomenon and man-made change is another. People attempt to confuse the two and pretend like there is no way to tell the difference when there are a few ways, first of which is seeing how the carbon isotope ratio has changed over the past 150 years. This has been shown in tree ring and coral study. Co2 burned by man and natural co2 have different ratios. This is why it's important to know which gases are increasing and why -- as I said in the first post.

[david_rockafeller]

Please refrain from making stupid, offhanded comments -- this is an on-topic forum.

[Huntster]

What an idiot.

What happened in Haiti could happen to anywhere in the Caribbean because all these island nations are in peril because of global warming

[KPres]

A cooling climate doesn't negate global warming, but it does prove that the models that produced all the hysteria are necessarily flawed, since they failed to predict the cooling. And if the models are flawed, how can I believe that Miami is going to be under water in 2100?

Especially when the whole theory is being pushed by the political group that benefits most from climate hysteria?

[grypo]

^Well, since the Earth isn't cooling, and it's been warmer this decade than last, your argument is bunk. And if you don't believe those evil, "hysterical" climate scientists, maybe you can learn from statisticians?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/ ... 3035.shtml

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

[KPres]

You're playing with words. The reason this decade was hotter than the 90s is because the cooling of this decade has happended at a slower rate than the warming of the 90s. Ergo, this decade is hotter.

But open your eyes, what do YOU see after 1998...


No matter what you say, that's not what the models predicted. That's the point, the models aren't accurate.

But don't get your panties in a bunch. I believe that global warming is happening and I believe that man plays a role. But I don't believe the hysteria from the likes of Al Gore, I believe we have time, and I believe the problem can probably be solved by a mix of policies that don't have to cripple the world's economy. I also believe the hysteria is being ramped up to further a given political ideology that distorts the reality in order to usurp power and put it in the hands of the govt, and on those grounds, the hysteria should be opposed so that sanity can prevail.