Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 14 Dec '10 17:51
    and AGAIN they don't listen!

    http://detnews.com/article/20101212/MIVIEW/101212001/Climatologist--Record-cold-temps-at-Cancun-warming-summit#ixzz186rC4PbX

    Climatologist: Record cold temps at Cancun warming summit
    Roy Spencer / Climatologist

    Today’s my first full day in Cancun at COP-16, and as I emerged from my hotel room I was greeted by a brisk, dry, cool Canadian breeze. It was 54 deg. F in Cancun this morning — a record low for the date. (BTW, Cancun is nowhere near Canada).

    ...

    The irony: As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F.
  2. 14 Dec '10 18:05
    climate: long term
    weather: short term
  3. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    14 Dec '10 18:14 / 2 edits
    The irony: 2010 was one of the warmest years in the last century.
  4. 14 Dec '10 19:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    climate: long term
    weather: short term
    You can't possibly expect simple-minded folks like spambot and the other global warming deniers to understand this, they are only interested in cherry-picking the data in a clumsy attempt at confirming their myths. and you know what, its actually fun to watch all the "Ha! its too cold, there's no global warming!" comments.
  5. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    14 Dec '10 19:45
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    and AGAIN they don't listen!

    http://detnews.com/article/20101212/MIVIEW/101212001/Climatologist--Record-cold-temps-at-Cancun-warming-summit#ixzz186rC4PbX

    Climatologist: Record cold temps at Cancun warming summit
    Roy Spencer / Climatologist

    Today’s my first full day in Cancun at COP-16, and as I emerged from my hotel room I was greeted by a brisk, ...[text shortened]... hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F.
    I consider it very arrogent on your part to presume to know what God is warning anyone about. I very much doubt you have the authority to speak for God. As for global warming, most of the worlds scientific community (except those being influenced by big business) have concluded years ago that global warming is very real, and very dangerous.

    What do you think? Are the polar ice caps shrinking because it's cooling down?? Why don't you peddle your silly message to Rush Limbaugh.
  6. Standard member joneschr
    Some guy
    14 Dec '10 20:17
    And yet, this seems to be the most common argument against global warming I encounter.

    And sadly, it's a very strong argument. Not because it actually makes any sense... It's strong because it's what the masses will cling too. They'll look outside their window, and unless they see their lawns burning up in front of them, they'll assume global warming is a scam. People just don't understand science. Math is hard. How do you get their support? How do you convince people there is global warming when there exist cold days? You can't really expect them to read and think.
  7. Standard member MacSwain
    Who is John Galt?
    14 Dec '10 21:06 / 3 edits
    ATMOSPHERIC CO2

    Here is an inconvenient truth about CO2: CO2 is only 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere.

    Nature generates about 30 times as much CO2 as does man. Yet the warming hoaxers are unconcerned about natures outpouring. They are alarmed only by anthropogenic CO2, that 0.00128% created by man.

    Total CO2 in our entire atmosphere is 0.04% - Of that 0.04% only 0.00128% is man-made (anthropogenic) CO2. While 0.03872 percent of earths’ atmosphere is naturally occurring, uncontrollable CO2.

    In fact: CO2 is a very minor contributor to the “greenhouse” effect when water vapour (also a greenhouse gas) is taken into consideration. Water vapour is a massive 4.0% of earth’s atmosphere as compared to CO2, which is only 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere. However, water vapour is ignored because it is almost entirely natures’ creation.

    If all man-made CO2 were totally removed from earths atmosphere, which cannot be done, atmospheric CO2 would only fall from 0.04% to 0.03872%. A miniscule drop of 0.00128% !! This begs the question: Why did the hoaxers focus on CO2? It was because it was the target that could be most closely associated with man.

    So, what will these government plans accomplish if they could lower anthropogenic CO2 by their 10% goal? It would lower the existing 0.00128% anthropogenic CO2 to 0.001152%. Total atmospheric CO2 would then drop from 0.04 percent to 0.039872%. The only noticeable effect will be the effect of sacrificing worlds' economy.

    In fact: CO2 is a very minor contributor to the “greenhouse” effect when water vapour, a major greenhouse gas, is taken into consideration. Water vapour is 4.0% of earth’s atmosphere; CO2 is only 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere. However, water vapour is ignored because it is almost entirely natures creation and out of reach of man’s screwdriver.

    The logical conclusion is: You can spit from your window and have an effect on global warming equal to the change of eliminating 10% of anthropogenic CO2 - that gigantic, harmful, 0.000128% - would have.
  8. 14 Dec '10 21:14 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    and AGAIN they don't listen!

    http://detnews.com/article/20101212/MIVIEW/101212001/Climatologist--Record-cold-temps-at-Cancun-warming-summit#ixzz186rC4PbX

    Climatologist: Record cold temps at Cancun warming summit
    Roy Spencer / Climatologist

    Today’s my first full day in Cancun at COP-16, and as I emerged from my hotel room I was greeted by a brisk, ...[text shortened]... hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F.
    But don't you know that the cold temperatures are caused by carbon emissions? I mean, we recently learned that volcanos and earthquakes are caused by global warming as well so why wouldn't these cold tempreatures be caused by global warming?

    Now all we need is some scientific theory to bait the hook. Any suggestions anyone?
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    14 Dec '10 21:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by MacSwain
    [b]ATMOSPHERIC CO2

    Here is an inconvenient truth about CO2: CO2 is only 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere.

    Nature generates about 30 times as much CO2 as does man. Yet the warming hoaxers are unconcerned about natures outpouring. They are alarmed only by anthropogenic CO2, that 0.00128% created by man.

    Total CO2 in our entire atmosphere is 0.04% - hange of eliminating 10% of anthropogenic CO2 - that gigantic, harmful, 0.000128% - would have.[/b]
    That CO2 is a very small % of atmospheric gas does not mean it cannot have an effect on global temps. Remember, we're only talking about a small effect on temps that could be catastrophic. Measure in Kelvin degrees, the Earth's average temperature is about 288 degrees. If an increase in CO2 could elevate that to, say, 291 degrees, that could be disastrous for our civilization.
  10. 14 Dec '10 21:23
    This should be entertaining, "nature generates 30 times more CO2 than man". How do they calculate how much CO2 nature generates?

    Let's do a little math. Since 1960 atmospheric CO2 has risen from about 315 to 385 ppmv (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg). Let's neglect the influence of man (since nature does almost all the emitting anyway), and nature's emissions of CO2 will have reduced to zero all atmospheric CO2 in the year 1735 (assuming nature's production of CO2 is constant). Now that's some young Earth creationism!
  11. Standard member MacSwain
    Who is John Galt?
    14 Dec '10 21:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    That CO2 is a very small % of atmospheric gas does not mean it cannot have an effect on global temps. Remember, we're only talking about a small effect on temps that could be catastrophic. Measure in Kelvin degrees, the Earth's average temperature is about 288 degrees. If an increase in CO2 could elevate that to, say, 291 degrees, that could be disastrous for our civilization.
    Earth’s atmosphere allows the sun’s heat in but resists its re-radiation back into space. The atmosphere is comprised of nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21%, argon 0.93% and CO2 0.04%. Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapour, up to 4% by volume.

    Nitrogen and Oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. Greenhouse gases included in Kyoto Protocol were rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that enriches Al Gore, actually has low warming potency. Methane-CH4 (aka natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2. Nitrous Oxide-N2O, mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2.
  12. 14 Dec '10 21:30
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
  13. Standard member MacSwain
    Who is John Galt?
    14 Dec '10 21:58
    Four major global temperature tracking outlets released data showing temperatures had dropped and reached a value large enough to erase nearly all global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

    Official government measurements show the world's temperature has cooled since reaching its most recent peak in 1998. The global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius above previous 20-year average. 1999, the high was measured 0.42 degrees Celsius above the same average - clearly cooler.
    Global temperature reached its peak in 1998. To large extent, this peak can be attributed to the very strong El Nino event of 1997-98. Temperatures for the globe as a whole tend to be higher during El Nino, as the Pacific waters affect temperatures worldwide.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to this 12-year cooling trend some alarmists argue as follows:

    The Earth System Science Centre, said: "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this.

    A decade of level or lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system.
    It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend. It's easy to “cherry pick” a period to reinforce a point of view. Claims that global warming is not now occurring ignores this recent change as natural variability and it’s misleading.”
    (Alarmist’s will know all there is to know about “cherry picking” data - refer to Nov. 2009 leaked email from Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University)

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First let us agree upon one thing, we do not know how to accurately take, measure, or even define earths “normal” temperature. Therefore, it is impossible to use it as a calibration factor to validate ridiculous "models" that model only the preconceptions of their authors. There is no natural phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming. There is only a preconception of it, and yes you can model preconceptions, but only for willing alarmist followers.

    NASA's silly data set, which they offer up as “earths average temperature”, is nothing of the sort. It is only a meaningless collection of numbers that is used to support their preconceptions; alas, temperatures of the last 11 years no longer offer them support.

    Anyone who believes this is science has never come close to science. This includes the people who generate propaganda for their pay and I can’t believe any of them with any real skills in science believe what they are spouting, but their pay does depend upon it. there is no decent work for unemployed climate hysteria workers.

    Western Washington University in Bellingham said at the American Geophysical Union's meeting they think the world is now in a 30-year cooling phase. The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beware the Orwellian doublespeak of the Climate Change priesthood. Some examples:

    1. "...Short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant..."
    (That short term cooling period is now at 12 years and counting. The previous warming period, which was enough to warrant a massive overhaul of civilization itself, lasted about 20 years.)

    2. Hadley Centre explains away this unexpected cooling as "natural variability."
    (If this makes sense; why wouldn't it also explain the previous 20-year warming trend?)

    And - The winner, from meteorologist Nicholas Bond:
    3. "The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume..."
    (How can you obtain evidence from events in the future?) (Also, how can something resume that is still argued to be on-going
  14. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    14 Dec '10 22:29
    What 12 year cooling trend? Does reality ever curb your views?
  15. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    14 Dec '10 23:29
    Originally posted by MacSwain
    Earth’s atmosphere allows the sun’s heat in but resists its re-radiation back into space. The atmosphere is comprised of nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21%, argon 0.93% and CO2 0.04%. Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapour, up to 4% by volume.

    Nitrogen and Oxygen are not greenhouse gases a ...[text shortened]... ent than CO2. Nitrous Oxide-N2O, mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2.
    And WHERE did you get your Ph.D. in climatology again...?

    By the way, John Galt was an avaricious pig-fister.