Slashdot Mirror
New Record High Temperature At South Pole
New submitter Titus Andronicus writes "The South Pole experienced its highest-ever recorded temperature of -12.3C (+9.9F) on December 25, 2011, according to preliminary reporting from the Antarctic Meteorological Research Center at the University of Wisconsin."
Just like snow on Copenhagen is weather, not climate, right?
Soon we can turn Antarctica into a useful human settle-able land with farming and cities. Maybe Al Gore Warming isn't so bad.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
see http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/blog/2011/12/29/update-on-record-high-temperatures-at-south-pole-and-aws-sites/
"Here is an update on the South Pole and nearby Nico and Henry Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) record high temperatures recorded on 25 December 2011:
-- The prior record high temperature at South Pole was recorded on 27 December 1978, not on 12 December 1978, as misquoted in some sources.
-- Preliminary assessment of the record high at Nico AWS was -8.2C or 17.2F on 25 December 2011. This breaks the previous known record of -13.9C or 7F recorded on 4 January 2010.
-- Preliminary assessment of the record high at Henry AWS was -8.9C or 16F on 25 December 2011. This break the previous known record of -14.5C or 5.9F on 5 January 2010."
Where are those global warming naysayers now, huh?
Don't worry, they won't be going anywhere.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Hope they can swim :)
I all seriousness, I understand the folks who don't believe in global warming. I don't understand how they reach their conclusions, but what I guess I can't wrap my head around is how staunch they seem to be that global warming is absolutely not possible. It seems like they're vehemently trying to prove a negative instead of considering that even if all of the components of global warming aren't valid, there are parts that are worth considering as being problems that need to be resolved.
Bark less. Wag more.
Time to play some disc golf.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
The summary says "highest-ever *recorded* temperature".
previous temp high was in Dec 1978, detail records have been kept since mid 1950's.
approximate annual average temperature records through ice cores date back about 800,000 years.
I can say that, aside from the pleasure of moving air (not necessarily cool air), having a fan on my face was fairly integral to being able to sleep. I've since beat the habit, but still... not sure where it comes from as I did not grow up with air conditioning. *shrug*
This is indeed weather, it's come close to that before (in the "global cooling" period of the 1970s) Dec 27, 1978 the high was -13.6 C +7.5 F.
It is the record high, but the average high in December is only -15.7F. Keep in mind that they get nearly 24 hour sunlight for all of November, December and January. Can't deny it's getting warmer, but this isn't doomsday material just yet.
First, it's mid summer there. Second, there is no mention of the previous record so we have nothing to compare this "record" to. I have a friend who works there every year and his comments, from camp, last month was that they were battling storms and cold and hadn't been able to get too much work done. Finally, we have only been keeping track of temperatures there since 1956 so it's hardly worth getting into a tizzy over 60 years worth of record data.
What's hilarious is how these people shriek and cry about how the earth has always experienced climate change, pointing to the research of climatologists to prove this, but then when those same climatologists say there is evidence that this warming trend is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, suddenly they can't be trusted.
Oh, it's like this: global warming cause taxes, taxes are wrong and therefore global warming is wrong. QED.
I all seriousness, I understand the folks who don't believe in global warming. I don't understand how they reach their conclusions, but what I guess I can't wrap my head around is how staunch they seem to be that global warming is absolutely not possible.
I find it odd that you characterize adherence to the "global warming" hypothesis as a matter of belief. I thought this was intended to be a scientific matter. If it's a matter of faith, then everybody can choose whether to believe in it or not, right? So what's your beef? Or are we having a religious war...
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
I totally agree, but never put it so well. Thank you.
really? what you've always said? That the earth ISN"T experiencing warming? That is what the naysayer say
It's simple- you have a group of people who say that they've done the science and have the answers. That group then says that noone should ever challenge their science or examine it (the science is settled). And that the only people who can perform the science are people who already agree with the conclusions and who are close friends to the current researchers - and if you come to any other conclusion then will be personally and professionally destroyed. When the real-world data is shown to be flawed, they insist that it doesn't really matter. Most of the science is done in computer simulations, whose consistency with the real-world should never be challenged. Most importantly, all of the predictions made by the Global Warming scientists are wrong. They predicted that the past 3 years would be the worst ever for hurricanes - they turned out to be some of the most mild. The predicted temperature changes couldn't have be much worse.
Compare that with any other real branch of science and you'll see why any reasonable person would be skeptical. I read an interesting thesis challenging the basis of the theory of relativity the other day written by a layman, and the responses to it were theories on tests that could be performed that would prove or discredit the theory. Science should be challenged - always. Even wild and ridiculous theories are tested and proven or disproved. Tests MUST be reproducible and available to all. That is the very nature of "The Scientific Method".
What the global warming community does is akin to a bad religion. It has its high priests who must never be challenged. They create prophecies which turn out to be false, but then their defenders just pretend that they were true. Anyone who challenges the religion are attacked.
I don't like bullies - especially ones who dress up and play scientists.
Nobody has ever denied that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.
I see you've never heard of young earth creationists.
Not to defend or disagree with your comment's parent, I've been thinking a bit about science belief/knowledge and relaized that there's a lot of science which I understtand logically but that I haven't witnessed firsthand. For instance, in physics labs I've proved a lot of physics to myself, and I "know" that bit of science. I've seen the curvature of earth and know that it's round. I've used an electron microscope (don't remember the type) and understand its function and now I "know" about atoms. Biology, on the other hand, is something I'm not terribly versed in. I totally believe that white and red blood cells exist, and that that's how our immune system works and how oxygen gets to our body parts, but I can't say that I "know" it to be true. I'm sure this sounds like a drunk college conversation, sorry. It'd be better but I'm driving and typing...
If all the ice melts, we'll be able to dig up the fossilized palm trees.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I don't think people in the anti-warming camp are saying its not possible. What I do think they are saying is that its not really possible to say definitely that global warming is happening as pro-warming people are saying it is with certainty. There are mitigating circumstances, including figures that show there is dramatic cooling occuring in certain areas that fly in the face of the doomsayers. You can't point at the world and say "Now theres warming happening on that planet." You appear to want to force a complete upheaval of the world's economic system based on hype and heresay, and they are saying "Hang on a second, lets take a look at this." Big difference.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I would say its more like this: there is a robber in your home, we all know there is a robber, that robber may or may not have a gun, many scientists have shown evidence that robber has a gun, some people have stated he does not have a gun. (We all know we are putting more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.) Generally we shouldn't ignore the robber and do nothing about him whether or not he has a gun, he is still robbing us of something, and if he does or does not have a gun we should still treat him as dangerous.
For the climate scientist it is a matter of science. For all others it is a matter of belief (in what the climate scientists tell you is happening). Whether or not you decide to believe the consensus of the experts (climate scientists) is up to you . . . some do, and some don't.
It wouldn't be as much of a problem if the whole thing wasn't tied to a bunch of people using it to gain power and wealth. Most of us have always been fans of conservation. When conservation got co-opted by environmentalists and turned into a power play and a get-rich-quick scheme is when we got annoyed. When it was co-opted by government and used as an excuse to pass ridiculous laws that hurt the economy and made poor people even poorer is when we got pissed.
You're free to believe whatever you want, but until we have actual facts that can't be disputed then it's stupid to go making things worse just because something *might* be true. Nobody gets on stage and argues that 2+2=4 because we all know it's a fact. Nobody gets on stage and says "90% of all scientists believe gravity pulls things down." because it's a fact. Nobody uses the word "consensus" when talking about how to find the circumference of a circle. That's how you tell the difference between science and religion.
In science, nobody has to resort to insults like calling people "deniers" or making silly accusations to make their point. It's how we know you're full of crap. :)
They don't point to research of climatologists to show the earth has always experienced climate change, they point to the research of geologists. Climatologists mostly work with computer models.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Alright, the Earth goes through periods of climate upheaval. Fine.
Now, knowing that, why on Earth would we NOT want to minimize our own artificial contributions to the process? Wouldn't it be in our best interest to limit our hand in climate change? If global warming is a natural phenomenon, then we may be in for hundreds to thousands of years of progressive warming. In the interest of helping our species survive, wouldn't we want to manage our resources intelligently in order to better survive what you consider an inevitable natural process?
goto kitchen. fill glass with ice, fill rest with water. let sit, watch the water overflow Sadly I have won many of bets with people on how the water will not rise. Everyone assumes the water will rise.
Does it make less sense to you than, say, religion? The two things seem pretty similar to me.
Maybe it's just me, but the next time I see some conspiracy theorist, denialist, or anybody else who has strong opinions on a controversial topic who makes a post along the lines of:
All followers of the church of x! Your pope (famous person who talks about x) has ordered that you pay indulgences in the form of (something related to x that costs money). And anyone who questions the ultimate truth of x is a heretic who shall be burned at the stake.
I may strangle someone. Not because I am part of the church of whatever x is, but because my tolerance for such deuchebaggery has dropped below the "gonna have to choke a bitch" mark. You haven't crossed that line yet, but you seem to have spotted it and shouted "hey, what's over there?"
Slashdot's previous article was titled: "Sun Storms May Affect Radios, Cell Phones Today".
Ya think that shiny thing up there has anything to do with global warming?
I all seriousness, I understand the folks who don't believe in global warming. I don't understand how they reach their conclusions, but what I guess I can't wrap my head around is how staunch they seem to be that global warming is absolutely not possible. It seems like they're vehemently trying to prove a negative instead of considering that even if all of the components of global warming aren't valid, there are parts that are worth considering as being problems that need to be resolved.
It's the same people who visit that "Creation" museum in Kentucky and believe that dinosaurs were around at the same time as humans. Too bad we can't allow each of them to prove their theory by forcing them to live at the same time as their "pets" were roaming around on that sixth day. Wouldn't allow them firearms or the technology to make them (science is non-existant to them anyway). They just have to remember one universal rule...they don't have to run the fastest...just faster than the other person quoting their Bible to their "pet".
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
But by saying the planet is doing it on its own makes us seem insignificant like ants on a giant ball!
These errors are averaged out over hundred of thousands of measures.
In fact, if some of this is happening naturally, then that just means we need to have a net reduction in CO2, below past where it was 1000 years ago.
I swear, we're in a crashing car, and scientists are blaming the driver, and insisting he needs to drive better. However, some people insist a tire just blew, it has nothing or almost nothing to do with the driver at all...and thus he doesn't need to drive better and we should crash?
Uh, no.
And even if we're going to crash no matter what, and can't fix it, should we not start buckling our seatbelts and installing airbags? Perhaps climate change is unavoidable...all that means is that we should redirect energies from trying to avoid it to trying to survive it.
Which, when it comes to energy consumption, would be a lot of the same things, because climate change is going to start sucking so much added energy we really can't afford to not be energy efficient everywhere we can. We've going to have to save our energy for climate control. (And we're going to run into some serious problems with water, also. No just sea levels, usable drinking water.)
Likewise, climate change is going to make already scary political situations worse, and if the world really was going to face a disaster on that scale, it would be clever to, you know, stop relying on middle east oil. Or oil at all. The more local the energy, the less likely it is that random world-wide problems will interrupt it. (Do you know what happens if shifting weather patterns start dumping 100x the amount of water in a desert? Sounds great in theory...in practice, not so good.)
If someone was standing there arguing that the government shouldn't spend money installing solar panels, but instead should spend money trying to build flood walls around Manhattan or subside sheltered farms to avoid the random weather, okay, I could respect that. I'd disagree, but we'd both be in the same universe. It would be a legitimate disagreement....I think a problem can still be corrected in time, he thinks it's too late and we have to deal with the results.
But the people pushing 'Climate change is not cause by us' aren't actually 'People who disagree about the best next step', they're 'People who profit from the status quo and assume they'll be dead before they have to deal with it, so are literally arguing everything in order to delay any change'
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
A First World country wherein thousands of people die simply because it was hot outside? What's wrong with this picture?
Perhaps you should ask the people in the Chicago? The difference is that a lot of Europe rarely (or at least it used to be rarely) gets hot enough to require air conditioning in contrast to parts of the US that trace their population growth to the invention of air conditioning due to the stifling heat (at least that's what Atlanta claimed in some of it tourist literature several years ago).
I would hazard a guess the the main reason for this is that the US is at a lower latitude that much of Europe and lacks the moderating influence of the ocean (no Mediterranean, Rockies block air from Pacific), but I am by no means an expert in such matters. Whatever the cause the US does seem to be, on average, hotter than much of Europe in the summer and colder in the winter. Europe does get hot but not for the prolonged months that the US seems to suffer. This means that not only is air conditioning a lot less common but heat waves occur far less frequently and are typically less severe so, when bad ones do happen, there are far more vulnerable people around because their population has not been reduced by frequent heat waves and there is little/no air conditioning available to help.....of course this does not explain the deaths in Chicago but I'll let you figure out why they happened.
Global warming doesn't preclude local cooling. In fact, it's a natural consequence as weather patterns change.
And no, the naysayers are not saying "Hang on a asecond, let's take a look at this", they're coming up with any number of reasons to not look.
Nobody is seriously stating that global warming research should not be held to scientific scrutiny. The only people making that baseless accusation are the people who actively deny it, usually for political or financial reasons.
My problem with the naysayers is that they consistently make broad sweeping claims without backing up their claims with results from independent peer reviewed studies that HAVE NOT BEEN FUNDED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS. They also consistently and embarassingly rehash tired strawman arguments on isolated incidents (Eg. One unethical scientist fudging data) or a couple of questionable inputs (Eg. A few subsets of input data that may not be completely accurate). These aren't the actions of a scientist seriously trying to reproduce experiments and legitimately test real theories on climate change, these are the typical actions of a defense lawyer trying to spread confusion and cast doubt in the face of hard concrete evidence.
Further still you accuse climate change scientists from having an agenda and predetermining their own conclusions? Do you get this from one bad apple in the bunch? Of course they have a preconceived notion of what the truth is, its called a hypothesis, which is exactly what the experiments aim to prove.
I don't like bullies, especially those that take marching orders from their messianic right-wing talking heads.
It'd be better but I'm driving and typing...
I "know" this is bad for you health !
Non-Linux Penguins ?
A heater converts energy from one form to another. i.e. electricity to heat.
A cooler is a heat pump - it moves "heat" from one point to another, hotter, point.
It is easier to get a high efficiency from a heater because most forms of inefficiency in a system turn out to be “waste” heat – i.e. what you want. Moving heat from one point to another is different. It’s though to get a highly efficient method of moving heat – unless you have demons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon
For instance, in physics labs I've proved a lot of physics to myself, and I "know" that bit of science ... Biology, on the other hand, is something I'm not terribly versed in ... I'm sure this sounds like a drunk college conversation, sorry. It'd be better but I'm driving and typing...
Not to worry. You're about to witness first hand a classic biologic experiment.
Say hello to Mr. Darwin for us ....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Actually, we came up with a lot of questions that were never answered very well. Like why were both Mars and Pluto exhibiting signs of global warming.
Seriously, two solar powered Mars rovers can't be causing that much pollution on Mars.
Nope. Read the primary research.
What are you trying to claim, here? That climatologists do NOT work with computer models? That they make predictions without any modeling? Sure, they collect data - you can't build a computer model without SOME real-world data to build it from.
What an outrageous claim! What "primary research" are you referring to? Temperature readings? Ice cores? Tree rings? That's used for the modelling, but it's just data collection, not "research".
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Global warming doesn't preclude local cooling. In fact, it's a natural consequence as weather patterns change.
Maybe, maybe not. In any case, do you have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell me? If so I'll just hand over my checkbook to you right now. Do you get my point? Or should I sledgehammer it home? In otherwords, whats your evidence for that statement? I'm not ready to take 5 steps backwards economically becuase you and your friends have fears with regards to this supposed phenomena. Even if the the world's climate were warming, you have no evidence to support that it is more than a perodic aberration.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Sure it's possible, because ANYTHING is possible. What's lacking is any form of actual hard science to back the theory up. All I see is fabricated data and corrupt models promulgated by politicians in the name of more control.
When I dump a gallon of water in a river, it has an affect.
But is it significant?
If I recal correctly, a recent volcano and fire basically emitted about 15 years of CO2 savings.
To me, that means if we had about a dozen eruptions all of our savings would be eradicated. I am then left wondering, are our CO2 emissions significant?
"and if you come to any other conclusion then will be personally and professionally destroyed."
>> "I deleted the rest from the quote because there's not point. The above already shows you are insane or a paid-for-by-assholes troll."
The above proves that the above above was in deed correct.
Global warming doesn't preclude local cooling. In fact, it's a natural consequence as weather patterns change.
Maybe, maybe not. In any case, do you have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell me? If so I'll just hand over my checkbook to you right now. Do you get my point? Or should I sledgehammer it home? In otherwords, whats your evidence for that statement? I'm not ready to take 5 steps backwards economically becuase you and your friends have fears with regards to this supposed phenomena. Even if the the world's climate were warming, you have no evidence to support that it is more than a perodic aberration.
You are actively admitting that you have a financial incentive as an individual for man-made climate change to be untrue. You are also likely not a climate scientist that has a lab and funding to where you can perform your own experiments trying to discover the truth for yourself, therefore you must accept a conclusion derived by experts in the field that have the means to perform these experiments and publicly disclosed their evidence for their conclusions in scientific journals.
So despite the vast array of evidence from independent research, versus the much smaller subset of contrary evidence from research known to be funded by individuals and entities who also have a direct financial incentive for this to be untrue, you choose to accept the latter. I am okay with you disagreeing in man-made climate change in this case as long as your truthful with yourself and others about your vested interests coincidentally being aligned with your viewpoints.
Do you get my point?
You know they account for that right? no? shut up.
Well, there's the typical cultist response from a Warmist - "You pointed out something that is embarrassing to my faith so Shut Up"!
Please do let us all know how you would "account" for that sensor being right neat a heat exhaust. I mean, you are saying they also have that sensor wired to the AC units to know exactly when they are on? Really?
Go ahead, show us how smart you are and that you have "corrected" for all variables.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I thought that just existed so I could do lens flare affects on my photos?????
You mean, we can't point to people that hold strong oppinions despite lack of evidence and tell they are similar?
In fact, the people of the Church of X are way more rational. They have no evidence, and won't ever. Making your belif despite conclusive evidence is quite more insane.
Rethinking email
You are actively admitting that you have a financial incentive as an individual for man-made climate change to be untrue.
Sure, as long as you actively admit that you have an interest yourself. Those Greenpeace t-shirts aren't going to sell themselves...
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Just out of curiosity....
If we did ever discover a living dinosaur. What would that say about our science?
And would McDonald's bring back Dino-Size meals. I want a large fry and a Dino-Sized burger!
Hey leave me be to relish in my insignificance. I'm a IT contractor, by definition I'm insignificant.
Shifts in surface topology (land and sea floor) does affect climate. But those thing operate on scales of hundreds of thousands and millions of years so on a scale of 1,000 years or less the effect is negligible.
Sure it's possible, because ANYTHING is possible. What's lacking is any form of actual hard science to back the theory up. All I see is fabricated data and corrupt models promulgated by politicians in the name of more control.
Thats all you see because the few isolated incidents of numbers fudging by a single unethical scientist are ridiculously overblown in the media to the point where everybody walks away with the impression that they are all a bunch of scam artists. I got news for you, government isn't an entity out to control you for mysterious reasons. Government is a MEANS to control you through the wealthy, the true holders of power.
Do you really think it is all a giant conspiracy by a former vice-president and some small environmental activist groups, or more likely a government being controlled by wealthy individuals to protect their financial interests while taking away your freedoms? Come on, use some common fucking sense.
If I recal correctly, a recent volcano and fire basically emitted about 15 years of CO2 savings. To me, that means if we had about a dozen eruptions all of our savings would be eradicated. I am then left wondering, are our CO2 emissions significant?
The fact that our CO2 savings can be measured in units of "volcanic eruptions" seems to imply they are at least as significant as the effects of, well, volcanic eruptions. And are you trying to argue that having a savings is bad because something could come along and wipe it out? Isn't that the POINT of savings?
I have $50k in the bank. But I could have an accident and end up with $50k of hospital bills, which would wipe out my savings. Therefore, I should not waste my time saving money, instead I should just go into $50k of debt if and when that happens. That seems to be your argument, correct?
If you're wondering why they'd risk hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives to afford that third yacht they've always wanted, then you don't understand the immense sense of entitlement that comes with being rich in America.
It has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement, it has everything to do with being a sociopath. They know the worst effects won't be until after they're dead, so they simply don't care.
There's also a third catch-all group for the libertarians
aka the Slashdot crowd: "government isn't perfect, so we need to eliminate it entirely".
They don't point to research of climatologists to show the earth has always experienced climate change, they point to the research of geologists.
Apparently you have never heard of paleoclimatology.
It is my observation that in the United States and even Canada it is the religious right who make up the highest proportion of global warming nay-sayers. Go figure.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Please leave the Clathrate gun out of this, because it's scary.
Besides surely not all Siberian scientists agree on the kilometer-wide burpings from the East Siberian sea observed recently.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
That is a strawman that is so fundamentally dishonest that you should be ashamed for even suggesting it. Of course climatologists work with models, what's the matter with you? Ice cores, etc. are not just data collection techniques, though, there is plenty of research using those techniques that does not involve the creation of models, for example simply correlating high atmospheric CO2 levels to temperature.
If you are going to make the extraordinary claim that significantly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration in the air will not cause warming, then it's up to you to prove such a remarkable claim. What's your explanation?
No, you don't recall correctly. Humans create at least 100 times as much CO2 as volcanos.
.The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. . .
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
What were the previous records for the warmest temperature in Antarctica and when they were reported?
Was there a leather-bound scroll I missed somewhere?
If you believe in everything written in scrolls, you need professional help asap. ;-)
when the AGW deniers trot out how good it will be for growing plants in high latitudes. Not only do high latitudes have essential zero soil, they are also nearly perpetually dark for about half the year. Its not as if most plants can do without sunlight during periods when growth and metabolism are dramatically shut down. Perhaps an agronomist can show me wrong, but I am unaware of a single agriculturally important species that could survive in near total darkness for 5-6 months out of the year.
The U.S. Antarctic Program’s Antarctic Sun has a writeup about this.
Yes, this is a major problem. Far too few Americans have much training in biology. With respect to the AWG issue, while many are aware that there have been tremendous changes in the earth's climate throughout its history, few seem to be aware of the time frames over which such changes have occurred. Yes Antarctica was largely devoid of ice in the Miocene and it subsequently became extensively covered in ice in the Pleistocene. However, these changes took place over millions of years. With the exception of the asteroid strike at the end of the Cretaceous, the degree of temperature change now being experienced far exceeds the rates previously seen. Reasonable estimates of change that can be expected as the earth warms over the next 300 years indicate that about 65% of all plant communities will shift to an entirely different one, with northern forests largely disappearing. If one even for a brief moment thinks about what the implications of this is for human agriculture, humans are in for a very difficult future if even the most conservative of the current climate models are anywhere near accurate. The temperature changes may seem small on average, but organisms and ecosystems are remarkably sensitive to even slight changes. For example, a pH drop of only 0.4 pH would force extinction of virtually all higher life forms in the oceans.
You are essentially saying that they don't care about their own offspring either. It would help we me all might dial back the hyperstimulation of our amygdalas and focus on some of the more observable facts concerning the issue.
if one does this say at http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ , it seems hard for me at least to understand what in these graphs the AWG deniers see that doesn't suggest its just going to keep getting warmer and warmer in the relatively near future. As much as I find the politics of most voters in Texas distasteful and counterproductive from my perspective, I don't really want to see my fellow Americans fry simply because they seem to be confused about the science of global warming.
That said, however, those who want to insist its really not getting warmer need to soon start getting credible in terms of observations they can point to defend their position. Its not as if praying can be expected to do much good, or at least one might conclude on the basis of this past summer's experiment or the approach of calling everyone an idiot or a dupe or a socialist or some other totally irrelevant epithet.
An airconditioner does create heat as a consquence of how it works, because after all work is being done to drive fans, compressors etc which results in waste heat. A good way to userstand how it works is to think of a very simple machine using the same cycle such as an old kerosene fridge:
For those fridges the working fluid was typically ammonia but it operates the same was as current working fluids, just with a different boiling point. Let's start the cycle with the compressor - in a kerosene fridge that's just a big tank of water that has tubes with the working fluid (coolant) running through it. The coolant comes in hot and in gas form, but it cools down then condenses into a liquid as it runs through the water. It needs a lot of surface area to lose that heat so there are a lot of loops of tube in the water. Next is the confusing bit. You need both some way to get below ambient temperature and to provide some force to keep the coolant flowing fast enough to get enough heat out of the fridge. To do that you actually put heat in the system - in this case a flame fed by a supply of kerosene, then you make the coolant expand as if flows as a gas into a larger tube and those tubes go into the compartment where you want to keep things cold. The heat is all still there but in the expanded gas it is spread over a much larger volume so the tubes holding it are colder than the tubes before the expansion. Heat flows from cold to hot so the heat is drawn out of the contents of the compartment and is taken away by the moving gas. The coolant then leaves the compartment, often had a lot of loops so that it can lose some heat to ambient air ouside, then goes back to the compressor.
Modern airconditioning and refridgeration systems operate the same way but with different details: such as using a different coolant, a compressor a bit more complicated than a tank of water and electrical heating.
Anyway, that's the specifics, but the general result is if you have force a process to work in some way then energy is required and heat is produced. That is more formally known as the first law of thermodynamics if you want to look it up.
The problem that you seem eager to overlook is that science has now been conducting tests upon test for the past 50 years and the results are reproducible and all indication, even recently by a Koch-paid scientist, that yes in fact it is getting warmer. Even priests can read a thermometer.
You don't have to feel bullied. You can go out and take the same measures for yourself. You can run the baseline data again. There are hundreds of overlapping independent datasets now, whether one is looking a historical temperature records, tree rings, trapped ice bubbles, radiometric readings, receding glaciers, historical and paleontological zoogeography, or sea level fluctuations. They all seem to point to a single, inescapable conclusion. Its getting warmer and its getting warmer much faster than it ever has before and we know its not because the amount of solar radiation has changed. The basic physical mechanisms by which the warming is occurring has been known since 1896.
Consequently, its well past time for anyone with even a limited knowledge of the science of global warming to take the kind of rhetorical argument you are making seriously. If you or any global warming denier has actual scientific evidence to the contrary, you need to step forward and relieve humanity of its anxiety since all scientific indications are that AWG is real and it poses massive consequences for humanity.
"What we can't prove is what climate change is healthy, natural, and sustainable and which change is not."
Actually, that is the simplest part. When there is a major storm such as the ones that recently occurred in the Philippines and in Tanzania and they literally wash away thousands of people, its fairly easy to see that is not "healthy". One could go on whether it be heat waves or floods. The damage is fairly easy to tabulate as is the number of such storms that are more frequent or more severe than on average.
The hard part is being able to predict the precise amount of change that can be expected in the future and even harder precisely how ecosystems and their included organisms will adapt or fail to adapt or respond to these changes. We know for a fact that the change in temperatures (warming) being observed are taking place at rates which exceed those that have typically taken place throughout human history by about a 100 times or so. What we don't know is precisely how quickly life on earth can adapt and subsequently evolve in the face of such changes. Judging from the extinction or extirpation rates of many species, it would appear that it is certainly isn't fast enough and we are already beginning to witness the single largest extinction rate in earth history.
However, the situation is complicated by the fact that habitat destruction may well account for many of these changes, so the precise magnitude as a percentage of all species being lost to climate change is unknown. However, there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that it is a factor in the disappearance of many species in their former ranges. Thus, the most recent computer simulations are in agreement with field studies, that suggest that most ecosystems will see about a 50-60% change in species in the next 300 years. From a historical perspective this is an alarming rate, particularly when one realizes that many of these species support the human food chain or are otherwise of economic importance.
I know of NO evidence that either Mars or Pluto is exhibiting signs of "global warming" beyond the range of changes that one would expect as a result of seasonal effects. If you do, please provide the citation to the peer reviewed publication making such an assertion.
In other news on the same day, a record low temperature was recorded at Oakland airport
That whole weather versus climate argument works both ways.
Next article please.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Since you are in full doubt mode, let me ask you a couple of questions.
How do you explain the fact that virtually every glacier in the world is receding if it the planet is not getting warmer?
Why do you believe that the production of 300,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide by humans annually is not causing the climate to change, when it is known that on average all the world's volcanoes only produce about 220,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually and there has been no appreciable change in the level of solar radiation falling on earth in the 50 plus years we have had relatively accurate satellite measurements?
Sorry to break it to you but while your observation regarding the melt in Greenland is about 80% accurate, the preponderance of ice in Antarctica is not floating on the surface of water but rather is sitting on a continental land mass.
There is little doubt now that Antarctic glaciers are melting at an accelerating rate and that it is being speeded by the fact that the water under the mouths of these glaciers are heating, causing calving at a greater frequency and thus allowing the main bodies of these glaciers to flow more quickly to the sea. We can expect from an complete melting of the Antarctic about a 60+ m rise in global sea levels, ignoring the additional water displacement that will occur as a result of eustatic adjustment. That this may occur within 1,000 years at current rates of warming and lubrication by liquid water at the base of these glaciers, would produce a consequence with considerable impact on humanity. This of course, is entirely independent of the profound biological and oceanographic and climatological changes that would accompany such an event.
Trying to turn climate science into the analog of a rhetorical bumper sticker is most unlikely to alter the course of world history.
It would say that either there is a refugia that the world's collector's have missed or that our knowledge of dinosarian biology has been entirely wrong.
However, the probability of that happening is exceedingly small, excepting of course, chicken McNuggests, which are in fact made from organisms, who share a relatively more recent ancestry with dinosaurs (at least compared to ourselves). You are far more likely to be struck by lightening next Thursday or killed by a pig on Saturday.
Actual science disagrees with you. UHI effects are very real, the discussion is whether we're able to manipulate the data so as to still being able to see what the true temperature rise is.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24538066
it's in my head
You are making a very simple logical and scientific error. The position being advocated is that AGW is true because the preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that the probability that is is false is quite small. In fact, it is becoming vanishingly small as more and more observations are made. There reaches a point, in ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, that any reasonable person can take it for granted that it is true in every meaningful sense of the word.
Its pretty much the same reason that you don't stay in bed in the morning thinking that, well I won't have to get up today because the sun is simply not going to appear on the horizon in the east today, since there is always an infinitely small probability that it won't. Normally, if someone used that kind of thinking as an excuse for not showing up for work, you would get yourself fired and FOR GOOD REASON.
However, you don't have to take my word for it. I suggest an experiment. Next summer, when temperatures reach new record highs run outside with your parka on yelling that everyone is an idiot for not believing you that its getting colder outside. Let us know what they say about your new career as a logician and scientist. I predict that you won't have to wait too long for the next opportunity.
"It's just doing what it's always done."
This is patently false. Although there are cyclical events, except for a brief period in the Pleistocene, there is no evidence that warming and cooling of the climate are cyclical in nature. Beside, the rate of change during the Pleistocene was about 100 times slower than what is occurring now, so even if it were "cyclical" the nature of the cycle and consequently the cause must be entirely different.
One could make a much stronger case that the fossil fuels industry is getting filthy rich by spreading ignorance. Compared to their profits, poor Al Gore wouldn't couldn't even be regarded as a welfare recipient.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you, but climatology like most other sciences are now multidisciplinary in nature. This is what makes the case for AWG so compelling. The sources of the data are quite independent but all point to the same overall conclusion. The earth is warming dramatically relative to the rates that took place in the past and the only credible explanation so far put forward to explain it is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an increase which happens to coincide almost precisely with the observed warming and the expected warming given known physical characteristics of carbon dioxide as it interacts with electromagnetic radiation.
Actually, paleoclimatology is a rather old scientific discipline that originally arose in investigating the distribution of fossil microorganisms. Ironically, in many cases as the result of studies focused on finding better ways to discover new sources of fossil fuels.
Don't feel bad though. Even Einstein, Gauss, and Newton didn't know much when they first got started. It appears, however, that unlike the aforementioned gentlemen, they seemed not to have been trapped by their ideology as you seem to be and consequently could muster the clarity of mind to calmly and carefully observe for themselves and make rational inferences from those observations.
Not really. Climate scientists don't have any special ability to observe with more accuracy or make prudent inferences. The data are there for any to reach their own conclusions, recognizing of course that there are lots of complicated issues to address.
However, generally speaking unless one has primary or original evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to take their findings seriously. Its not as if these people are CEO's or lawyers of fossil fuel companies and making a fortune keeping people ignorant as to the underlying accuracy of current science and hence have really anything to gain more valuable than their scientific reputations.
That's largely irrelevant. The real question is how will the various disagreeing parties begin to adapt to the ever more uncomfortably warm temperatures and more extreme weather events. No doubt some will remain oblivious until reality sets in. Others may try to act and resent those who don't carry their weight. Others will hopefully find solutions. Time will tell, but it seems progressively more clear with each new climatic milestone that is reached that the time to see what will happen is closer at hand than many currently think.
Theres always been warming and cooling. Nobody has ever denied that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.
That's true, but not all of those cycles have been as cozy as what we've had during our lifetimes. Ice a mile deep down to the latitude of New York City would be a non-trivial inconvenience, as would sweltering heat, higher sea levels, etc.
It's pretty obvious who here is having trouble wrapping their head around reality if you actually believe there are a whole bunch of people who refuse to believe that the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles.
I'm astonished that anyone who thinks the fact that the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles is a reason not to do anything about greenhouse emissions.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm an AGW doubter and a GW skeptic, but here I sit in Pittsburgh at the end of December and I have a wet, green yard outside of my house. I can't help but question if the world is truly warmer and if it is, then I have to ask why.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It is my observation that in the United States and even Canada it is the religious right who make up the highest proportion of global warming nay-sayers. Go figure.
Republican politicians, whose agenda is to take care of the rich, have succeeded in making it a "conservative" issue. I think the religious right mostly picks it up from their conservative leaders (e.g., FOX News).
There may also be some creationists who think the earth can't be changed by mere humans, or who think we're the stewards and thus can screw it up as much as we please, or evangelicals who think Jesus is going to come back in this generation (of course), so the earth doesn't need to last much longer.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The comment you replied to and claimed you could not understand!
No.
That series was the main vector that conveyed the long discredited global cooling idea to the public. Considering that a report conveying consensus on global warming had landed on President Johnson's desk some years before the global cooling idea had about as much credibility as Bigfoot.
English. That's correct, in English some things are named in capitals.
I thought that you understood perfectly but just wanted to point out a mistake in a persons writing style order to feel smug. There's a lot of such petty bullshit creeping into this place and it really pisses me off.
That group then says that noone should ever challenge their science or examine it (the science is settled).
I'd like to know who is saying that, and if someone is saying it, why anyone else should care.
Science is always subject to challenge. The problem for reality deniers is, a challenge only succeeds when the evidence is on its side.
And that the only people who can perform the science are people who already agree with the conclusions and who are close friends to the current researchers
Are you unaware that a prominent skeptical scientist put together a team to review the evidence, and just released their report? How come they weren't locked out?
and if you come to any other conclusion then will be personally and professionally destroyed.
Got a list of victims? People whose conclusions were actually based on evidence?
Even wild and ridiculous theories are tested and proven or disproved. Tests MUST be reproducible and available to all. That is the very nature of "The Scientific Method".
No, lots of natural phenomena are inherently irreproducible. And lots of science *is* available to all, though not many people are willing to invest the ten years of hard labor necessary to become an entry-level expert.[*]
I don't like bullies - especially ones who dress up and play scientists.
And professionals don't like big-headed A/Cs who think they know more than the experts.
[*] NSF *requires* data dissemination by its grantees. Of course, corporate research is only made available when it suits their interests.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The above proves that the above above was in deed correct.
The above above above was bullshit. The only thing I'd change is adding "or clueless or a fool" to "insane or a paid-for-by-assholes troll".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Was there a leather-bound scroll I missed somewhere?
If you believe in everything written in scrolls, you need professional help asap. ;-)
Also, some can't be safely read aloud, so be careful with them.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Global warming doesn't preclude local cooling. In fact, it's a natural consequence as weather patterns change.
Maybe, maybe not.
Global warming just means more thermal energy in the atmosphere and oceans. That can have dramatic effect on weather patterns; a simple "everywhere is warmer today than it was yesterday" is *not* what you should expect.
And FYI, one of the most threatening looming effects of GW is that meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet will cause the Gulf Stream to shut down, throwing northwestern Europe into a climate as cold as other regions at that latitude.
Even if the the world's climate were warming, you have no evidence to support that it is more than a perodic aberration.
We've understood the physics of greenhouse gasses for almost 200 years, and we know we've been dumping sh*tloads of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at accelerating rates since around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Do you dispute the physics? Do you dispute the fact that we're dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere?
Do you actually have a *reason* for your skepticism?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You are actively admitting that you have a financial incentive as an individual for man-made climate change to be untrue.
Sure, as long as you actively admit that you have an interest yourself. Those Greenpeace t-shirts aren't going to sell themselves...
Believe it or not, some of us don't get a cut on the sales of those t-shirts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sorry to break it to you but while your observation regarding the melt in Greenland is about 80% accurate, the preponderance of ice in Antarctica is not floating on the surface of water but rather is sitting on a continental land mass.
...and slipping into the sea ...at a rate that exceeds the prognostics.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Just out of curiosity....
If we did ever discover a living dinosaur. What would that say about our science?
Actually, not much. It would just tell us that a population survived the cataclysm and has been lurking somewhere that we haven't explored thoroughly.
Now, if we discover that the earth is hollow, or that the stars are just pin-holes in a dome with a big light behind it, or that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light, or that greenhouse gasses don't actually cause greenhouse effects, *then* we'll have to make some major changes to our theories.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
All I see is fabricated data and corrupt models promulgated by politicians in the name of more control.
Maybe you should be reading science journals instead of black-helicopter-paranoiac web sites.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Actually, we came up with a lot of questions that were never answered very well. Like why were both Mars and Pluto exhibiting signs of global warming.
You see, the problem is that "Pluto and Mars show signs of global warming" is simply untrue.
It's been debunked thousands of times.
If you're still repeating it then either you're a lying troll or you're getting your information from lying trolls.
Sure it's possible, because ANYTHING is possible. What's lacking is any form of actual hard science to back the theory up.
Ahrenius, 1896.
All I see is fabricated data
Citation needed.
Thats all you see because the few isolated incidents of numbers fudging by a single unethical scientist
What on earth are you blathering on about?
Slashdot's previous article was titled: "Sun Storms May Affect Radios, Cell Phones Today".
Ya think that shiny thing up there has anything to do with global warming?
Of course it does. It's where the heat is coming from.
Is it putting out more heat?
No.
So more heat is being trapped by the atmosphere?
Yes.
Why?
Because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Wow. Where is that CO2 coming from?
Burning fossil fuels.
Whoda thunk it. Maybe we'd better cut down?
Might be a good idea.
Is it putting out more heat?
No.
lol. So you're saying that amount of radiation the sun produces doesn't vary? And that solar activity won't affect the earth?
Is it putting out more heat?
No.
lol. So you're saying that amount of radiation the sun produces doesn't vary? And that solar activity won't affect the earth?
Please provide source for increase in solar output.
Learn how to use a search engine. But you can start here.
Even if the the world's climate were warming, you have no evidence to support that it is more than a perodic aberration.
What evidence would convince you?
Take a look at this.
The problem isn't that the temperature is higher than it's ever been before, but the incredible steepness of the curve for the last 100 years. It's unprecedented. Yes, judging by pollen, ice cores and sediments, it may have been warmer 7500 years ago (we're not even discussing if you believe the earth was created more recent than that). But then the changes came gradually over hundreds of years, not jumping dramatically within a few decades. When given time to react, the earth does pretty well. But abrupt changes? Not so much.
Anyhow, at this time of the year, it's appropriate to cite old Bing:
I'm dreaming of a white Christmas
Just like the ones I used to know
Yes, Christmases in Northern USA were generally white. Every year. Now, they're generally green, and the song is less meaningful. When was the last time you heard sleighbells in the snow in December?
Wikipedia has a page about sunspots. Zow, AGW must be false.
A nice citation for a published paper showing an increase in solar irradiance would be more convincing.
Believe it or not, some of us don't get a cut on the sales of those t-shirts.
Well, believe it or not, not all of us are in the one world government cabal.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
What evidence would convince you?
Empirically derived evidence, not anecdotal hearsay evidence.
When was the last time you heard sleighbells in the snow in December?
We had some of the coldest winter on record here in Washington last year, and looking outside my window I see snow on the ground. But you're right- I'm going to give all my income to Greenpeace this year because you cite some statistics. They'll know how to fix the planet.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Greenpeace are a bunch of idiots selling their spiel to even bigger idiots. They're to wannabe liberals what Ron Paul and his ilk is to conservatives - sheer populism and promises of easy solutions.
Look at what evidence says, and do your own thinking on what can realistically be done. Don't drink the cool-aid from any of the special interest groups on either the left, right or above, but look at all the evidence and where it comes from. Filter out the loonies, and you're left with substantial evidence that (a) climate is changing rapidly, and (b) we do not know what problems this can cause. Hedging one's bet by preparing for it getting worse doesn't seem like a bad thing to do. The loss in doing so seems far less than the loss if doing nothing and the results are bad.
I'm sorry to hear you say that about Ron Paul. I don't agree at all that he says he has any easy solutions. I think he has has real solutions though. The cure for over spending is to cut back. Its simple enough, but in practice could be one of the most difficult solutions the Fed would ever put into place. Paul is hardly a conservative's dream- he has arguments enough with them. I just think he has fewer with than than with Liberals.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
According to Webster's the first known use of the term was 1909, so I'll take your word about the focus of early studies in the discipline.
I'm not "trapped" by my ideology - it's ideologues like you that have used climate change to justify political implementations of their own vision of world governance that have poisoned the discussions of climate studies.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The earth is warming dramatically relative to the rates that took place in the past
While that's true of typical rates of change, the current warming is far from historically unique. There are many instances of rapid climate change with no anthropogenic causes.
the only credible explanation so far put forward to explain it is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
Maybe. Certainly every other theory or explanation is marginalized. But I think calling them "not credible" is a little extreme. Lots of scientists' theories have been deemed "not credible" by the mainstream academic for years before they were proven correct.
an increase which happens to coincide almost precisely with the observed warming and the expected warming
Not as well as closely as you would like to suggest (certainly not "precisely"). If it were, climate changes would be easier to predict. None of that is to say that human activity in general has no affect on the climate. It certainly has a contribution. How significant it is, and whether resources should be dedicated to trying to reverse the warming vs. mitigating the harm to humans from the change is very much up for debate.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You mean, we can't point to people that hold strong oppinions despite lack of evidence and tell they are similar?
In fact, the people of the Church of X are way more rational. They have no evidence, and won't ever. Making your belif despite conclusive evidence is quite more insane.
I say that as a supporter of climate change (or of those who believe it is happening). But I am saying that it is bad for either side because A). Nobody is ever convinced by the comparison and B). It seems hypocritical to say "don't make that comparison about my inability to meet your impossibly high level of evidence, but it's ok for me to compare it to your inability to meet the perfectly reasonable standard my side has set in some other area". By the time you finish arguing about when and where the analogy is appropriate, you will have accomplished nothing.
But yes, I can agree with your point. I just think there is too much subjective wiggle-room for it to be useful in communicating a point to those who disagree with you.
Most importantly, all of the predictions made by the Global Warming scientists are wrong. They predicted that the past 3 years would be the worst ever for hurricanes - they turned out to be some of the most mild. The predicted temperature changes couldn't have be much worse.
But we did get this:
"The year 2011 brought the most billion-dollar climate disasters to the United States ever, piling history-making events on top of each other to catastrophic results. The litany of disaster included a scorching drought that rivaled the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, a tornado season twice as bad as the great 1974 tornado outbreak, and flooding worse than the the great 1927 flood on the Mississippi River. [...] Nationwide, more than 6,000 heat records were broken this year. On average, the U.S. has three or four events every year that are considered major natural disasters. But, this year, there were at least fourteen billion-dollar disasters. Damages are expected to exceed $53 billion."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
For the climate scientist it is a matter of science. For all others it is a matter of belief (in what the climate scientists tell you is happening).
Ah, I get it! It's the old priesthood-and-you'd-better-believe-us- or-you're-gonna-die thing. How quaint.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
That's certainly not my intent to imply. I'm speaking from a practical standpoint, and it may apply less to climate science than say to quantum physics. There is some rigor behind the work, and those who have studied the field are the only ones who can really evaluate the work for validity (peer review). The rest of us are left to rely on that process is all I'm pointing out. I feel that I can stay informed but I cannot fully evaluate the work. I know a lot about computer models and their shortcomings, but without being an expert in the field I am left to either believe or not their conclusions. Note that I am not talking about al gore or any political "solutions".
To me it simply boils down to motivated reasoning. Personally, I'd much prefer to believe there's no such thing as climate change, but I'm not arrogant/ignorant enough to dismiss 98% of climate scientists who accept it. In a highly technical and complex matter such as this, the existence of such a broad consensus is very telling.
Should the balance of evidence shift I'll happily change my position. Until then I accept that climate change is real and that as a species we should be taking some kind of steps to mitigate it (again the details I'll leave to the experts). Less intellectually honest people are going to reject any evidence that makes them feel bad (however slightly) about damaging the biosphere, driving big cars, flying a lot, whatever. They'll attack straw men arguments and commit ad-hominem fallacies (label you a "warmer", an Al Gore aficionado, etc) - one thing you don't (or rarely) see is a reasoned argument that cites reliable evidence.
In short I believe AGW opponents oppose it because they don't want to believe it, and all the other nonsense follows on from that.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Actually, we came up with a lot of questions that were never answered very well. Like why were both Mars and Pluto exhibiting signs of global warming.
Seriously, two solar powered Mars rovers can't be causing that much pollution on Mars.
Same tired old AGW arguments. Have a read. Perhaps you should admit to yourself (and everyone else) that you simply don't want to believe in climate change. It's OK, I don't either. The difference is I'm not allowing my desires to rule my thinking.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Finding a rabbit or a horse fossil in the pre-cambrian rock layer would pretty much disprove evolution. Easy, eh?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
When there is a major storm such as the ones that recently occurred in the Philippines and in Tanzania and they literally wash away thousands of people, its fairly easy to see that is not "healthy". One could go on whether it be heat waves or floods.
I agree that AGW exists but I cringe a little at arguments like this as I feel they're intrinsically weak. Storms and other damaging weather events have always happened and always will. Perhaps you could argue the statistics end of it, but I just don't think the recent extreme weather has been happening for long enough for it to be a compelling argument. If it keeps ramping up over the next few decades I think it'll be an overwhelmingly powerful argument, though at that point it might be completely moot.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Solar output dropped over the last three or four decades. The arrogance of ignorance never ceases to amaze.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
"and if you come to any other conclusion then will be personally and professionally destroyed."
>> "I deleted the rest from the quote because there's not point. The above already shows you are insane or a paid-for-by-assholes troll."
The above proves that the above above was in deed correct.
The above proves that you are a moron - unless in your warped sense of reality quoting somebody's conclusion means destroying them. Wait - that's actually exactly what quoting denialists does.
Fandroids hate facts.
In all seriousness, I don't understand why I must "Believe" in global warming. Was there a leather-bound scroll I missed somewhere? If the data stands up to scientific scrutiny then it will stand on its own.
Excuse him for writing that in English, a language known unsuitable for scientific work because of its ambiguities. He wasn't talking about "believing or not believing" in global warming, has was talking about not-believing in global warming - or believing in the non-existence of global warming, despite the data standing up to scientific scrutiny.
Fandroids hate facts.
Actually, we came up with a lot of questions that were never answered very well. Like why were both Mars and Pluto exhibiting signs of global warming.
Seriously, two solar powered Mars rovers can't be causing that much pollution on Mars.
So what exactly is your lot of question that never was answered? Actually putting them forth would help. You certainly didn't in your post.
But then that was your tactic from the start.
Fandroids hate facts.