29 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyHe just read the URL and posted it without bothering to read what was there, even after I prompted him to do so. Not only were half the listed famines nothing to do with drought, but you simply don't measure the severity of a drought by how many people starved. Droughts are measured by the amount of precipitation relative to the average, as well as the regularity of that precipitation (depending on your definition). In Livingstone the worst drought years as defined by farmers, did not have the lowest rainfall. They had half the seasons rainfall in two or three big storms and then big gaps in the rains.
Thus it is obvious his link is totally useless for comparing the severity of past droughts with the severity of more recent droughts.
30 Apr 15
Originally posted by humySo now you are saying rapid global warming happened all the time and not just recently? If it has always been normal then what are you crying about? Fail!
So the data proves recent rapid global warming, just as expected; so what?
Recent rapid global warming is still rapid global warming regardless of what happened before that arbitrarily specified year in the past.
30 Apr 15
3 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain"..The temperature of the oceans has been measured globally to have rapid increases in temperature in recent years
So now you are saying rapid global warming happened all the time and not just recently? If it has always been normal then...
and to a GREATER temperature than since records began. (my emphasis and my quote ) ..."
-which is why the resent rapid warming is certainly not 'normal'.
+ nothing I said logically implies that rapid global warming has "happened all the time" (your quote); that is just completely stupid (and a false inference )
30 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyOcean temps have not increased that much recently compared to past increases. They increased more prior to 1945 and that is a fact.
"..The temperature of the oceans has been measured globally to have rapid increases in temperature in recent years
[b]and to a GREATER temperature than since records began. (my emphasis and my quote ) ..."
-which is why the resent rapid warming is certainly not 'normal'.
+ nothing I said logically implies that rapid global warming has "happened all the time" (your quote); that is just completely stupid (and a false inference )[/b]
We have been in a warming trend since about 300 years ago. Of course are going to have higher temps since the warming trend started. That can be expected. The fact is that John Abraham omitted the long term data that clearly indicates the warming of oceans today is NOT unprecedented as he says it is. There is no rapid warming of oceans today. If you want to claim this is one of many rapid warmings then rapid warmings are normal and not unprecedented just like I said. Either way you are wrong.
Ocean temps will not make your case to alarm people. Stop trying to scare people into wanting their fuel slapped with a carbon tax. Governments always want to tax people more. It is what they do. You are unwittingly promoting economic slavery of the lower class, exactly what leftist say they are against.
30 Apr 15
12 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainI didn't say it had! That is not what I said at all. Read my post again.
Ocean temps have not increased that much recently compared to past increases.
reminder:
"..The temperature of the oceans has been measured globally to have rapid increases in temperature in recent years
and to a GREATER temperature than since records began. ( my quote ) ..."
i.e. the most recent temperature increase has been BOTH rapid AND to a greater temperature since records began. Thus I was clearly not referring to the total increase in temperature, only that the rate of increase was "rapid" and, much more critically I think, the final temperature (or the highest temperature so far in the case of the current increase ) being higher than those other increases in temperature. Thus that assertion doesn't in any way logically imply that the total increase from what the global temperature was at the very start of the increase to global temperature at the very end of the increase will be higher with the current increase than all those particular past increases in temperature; only that the final temperature is higher.
A temperature increase (of something ) of, say, 6C, from 2C to 8C is a greater increase than a temperature increase of, say, 2C, from 7C to 9C; But saying the latter increase has increased to a higher temperature than the former doesn't in anyway logically imply that it is a greater increase than the former increase (and, in fact, the latter is the lesser of the two increases in this example ) -that is your logical error here.
You really cannot handle basic semantics, can you!
01 May 15
Originally posted by humyThere has been no unprecedented warming of the ocean in recent years. I proved you wrong. Prior to 1945 oceans warmed faster than in recent years. That is a fact. FAIL!
I didn't say it had! That is not what I said at all. Read my post again.
reminder:
"..The temperature of the oceans has been measured globally to have rapid increases in temperature in recent years
and to a GREATER temperature than since records began. ( my quote ) ..."
i.e. the most recent temperature increase has been BOTH rapid AND to a greater te ...[text shortened]... xample ) -that is your logical error here.
You really cannot handle basic semantics, can you!
01 May 15
3 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainwhat do you mean by "unprecedented warming"?
There has been no unprecedented warming of the ocean in recent years.
Do you mean by this:
1, warming to the highest temperature yet in a long time? if so, the data proves it has.
or
2, warming at the fastest RATE yet in a long time? if so, as I clearly already told you in my last post, that clearly wasn't what I said nor implied nor believe.
so which is it?
Prior to 1945 oceans warmed faster than in recent years.
this quote indicates you mean 2 above. If that is so, read my last post and then come back to us.
Did you moronically not even bother to read the first words of that post of "I didn't say it had! "? which part of "I didn't say it had! " do you fail to comprehend?
01 May 15
Originally posted by humyTry reading your own link.
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-global-species-extinction.html
"Still, Pimm and Urban said the extinction from warming climates is dwarfed by a much higher extinction rate also caused by man: Habitat loss"
BTW, 1 in 13 from global warming is completely ridiculous. No sane person would agree that GW alone will threaten species that much. More alarmist propaganda to convince people to accept being taxed. The sad part is that the tax will never curb CO2 levels. It will not even work.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensuswhatconsensusamongclimatescientiststhedebateisnotover.html
01 May 15
Originally posted by humy"what do you mean by "unprecedented warming"?"
what do you mean by "unprecedented warming"?
Do you mean by this:
1, warming to the highest temperature yet in a long time? if so, the data proves this.
or
2, warming at the fastest RATE yet in a long time? if so, as I clearly already told you in my last post, that clearly wasn't what I said nor implied nor believe.
so which is it?
[quote] ...[text shortened]... his quote indicates you mean 2 above. If that is so, read my last post and then come back to us.
What do you mean by a long time? If you mean since 1945 (and I think you do) that is not a long time, but it is long ago enough that man burning fossil fuels cannot be blamed. This is why you have failed. When ocean warming was faster then than now it is stupid of you to claim your alarmist nonsense is logical.
01 May 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Braina few hundred years.
What do you mean by a long time?
Now answer my simple question; do you mean answer 1 or answer 2?
Are you just talking about the RATE of warming? if so, I'm not and wasn't taking about unprecedented rate of warming and never claimed/believed such a thing.
01 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by humyIt also has no justification to claim 1 in 13 extinctions will result from climate change alone. Did they pull that number out of a hat? How could they possibly know that? The assertion is completely ridiculous. More propaganda.
So what? It doesn't deny extinction from warming climates.
More computer simulations. All propaganda is dependent on these worthless computer simulations that I proved to be bunk over and over again. Try reading your link before posting more computer model bunk. When you read stuff like the sentence below don't waste our time with your leap of faith in climate models. You keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Stop being insane.
"University of Connecticut ecologist Mark Urban compiled and analyzed 131 peer-reviewed studies on species that used various types of computer simulations"
01 May 15
Originally posted by humy"if so, I'm not and wasn't taking about unprecedented rate of warming and never claimed/believed such a thing."
a few hundred years.
Now answer my simple question; do you mean answer 1 or answer 2?
Are you just talking about the RATE of warming? if so, I'm not and wasn't taking about unprecedented rate of warming and never claimed/believed such a thing.
Then you simply have no point. FAIL!
01 May 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainand you would of course know this how?...
It also has no justification to claim 1 in 13 extinctions will result from climate change alone. .
So, despite you having NO science credentials, you think you would know this and know better and more about it than most climate scientists.
How?
Who do you expect us to trust his word on this; you, someone with NO science credentials and who has repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of science methodology; or the scientists that have done the actual research into this and who are qualified and generally know what they are talking about? Take a guess...