T1B

Nice call, fearmongers!

I'm guessing weather forecasting in places like San Diego
and Honolulu would have accuracy greater than 50%;
but most places would be lucky to be correct 1/2 the time.
BTW--Rack the global weather patterns that made this
year easy along the Gulf of Mexico !!

You're right about hawaii. Something that amazed me was that the local newstations actually kept a weather dude on the payroll and even let him on the air for a few minutes every evening to tell you that it would be 85-90 tomorrow with a few clouds and a chance of a sprinkle or 2. Just give the fukking surf report and get off the tv, was pretty much what I thought as did plenty others, I think.

As for the hurricanes, history has shown that there seems to be somewhat of a cycle which last a few decades. This cycle predates our 20th century enviro carnage that some weather guessers like to blame.

88 wrote:Scientists suck at predicting future climate events.

88 sucks at logic but excells at rehashing shit he finds on right wing web sites.

mvscal wrote:The National Weather Service is a "right wing web site"?

1) 88 just happened to be perusing the National Weather Service's website?

2) All government releases are right-wing. Edited NASA document and edited EPA estimation of 9-11 grounds out front shoulda told ya.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

88 wrote:Scientists suck at predicting future climate events.

88 sucks at logic but excells at rehashing shit he finds on right wing web sites.

And you spell real good.


Jesus.

88 wrote:As soon as the scientists can accurately predict the next six months, I'll consider listening to their prophecies for a longer period of time.

I see the Logic Fairy passed by your house yet again this holiday. A long term trend and short term patterns are completely different animals. Duh.

This whole global warming/climate change debate would be much easier if people got off their high horse and put away their agendas.

First off, global warming is FACT. Irrefutable by anyone with any brains at this point.

But then comes the problem -- once you state this FACT, right-wingers/rednecks/guilt-ridden nutcases automatically go to the "NO, IT WASN'T ME" card.

Where did I say it was you, dipshit?\

If people on ALL sides of the debate would just try to be honest rather than self-serving, there might be some meaningful discussion. But that won't happen.

Rather than focus on strictly human causes, the extent of which are, in reality, a complete unknown(and anyone who says otherwise is full of crap), maybe we should look at the ENTIRE picture.

First, the global average temperature has gone up in nearly the EXACT proportion the the rate of man's petroleum consumption. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see a red flag there.

Second, CO2 levels are high right now. You'll notice I didn't say "dangerously high," or "WE made the CO2 level go way up." While the burning of fossil fuels produces a very large amount of CO2 when you get 6,000,000,000 cranking it out all day, there's more to it than that. There's always been CO2 produced. In the past, where has it gone? The vast majority of it is consumed by marine phytoplankton and whatnot. But alas, with rampant ocean pollution, those phytoplankton are more scarce than they once were. Gee, shocking fucking concept, that.

On the other side of the coin, high CO2 levels create much higher growth rates for flora. The situation has tended to right itself in the past, since high CO2 occurs periodically through earth's history....which is also fact. Not sure how the messed-up ecosystem will allow it this time around, but something will step into the niche and breath it. Always do.


And now, we have some scientists in this age of exploding technology who are speculating that it's quite possible that the sun is going through a cyclical period of being hotter. Might be true, might not....but don't try and tell me driving an SUV has anything to do with it.


And what I find odd in all of this, is that you rarely see mention of the lack of severe volcanic activity which coincides with the onset of the industrial revolution. In the past, every so often, there's been a massive volcanic eruption that rocks the entire planet, and fills the atmosphere with particulate matter that circles the planet for a few years. This brings the global temperature way down, until it settles, and the warming process begins again. Been that way for millions and millions of years. When was the last globe-rocking volcanic event? Krakatoa in 1883? That's a long time for the earth to go without its sunglasses on. There is that.


So, if you couple man's relentless quest to insulate the atmospere and warm it up, the sun possibly getting hotter, and the lack of volcanic activity(possibly the most prominant factor), you get a higher global temperature. Common fucking sense.

But damn, all a person has to do is even mention "global warming/climate change" and you get some severely reactionary fucking idiots from both sides of the fence.

If you deny the reality of the planet getting warmer, you're a fucking idiot. How much more data do you need? There's been a whole slew of strategically-placed instruments to chart this for a hundred years....they're called "thermometers." Maybe you've heard of them? They work fairly well, and rarely lie. 'Tis FACT.

And then you have the "sky is falling" tards. If you think that me using too much gasoline, you're probably not being particularly open-minded on the issue, either. Of all the nutsacs to swing from, you could probably do better than Al Gore's.

So basically, what I'm saying is it's a more complicated issue than 99% of the people seem to want to admit. And the people making it a political/us-vs.-them thing...shut the fuck up. There's new information coming to light on the matter on a daily basis, yet people already have their minds made up, based on politics. Ponderous, and very telling of how little people have going on in their lives these days.

88 wrote:10. The Earth has been here 5 billion years. No man has been here longer than 150 years (Bible thumpers, eat a dick). The Earth will be just fine, even if we detonate every nuclear weapon we've ever built and set fire to the whole planet. The Earth has endured far worse shit than that in the past. It would suck for us to go through that.

Sorry about the head trauma. Please have your care-giver keep closer tabs on you in the future.

All I know is, I'm almost through with november and my earl tank is still pretty much full. I'd like to think I'm due some of the credit as I got 'bode on quite a few co2 eating oaks out back this year. I will continue in my attempt to achieve a north carolina climate here in ct by burning those fukking oaks this winter in my woodstove. Rack me.

This, ofcourse may or may not increase the odds of wolfie and all the other blue hair in sofla getting kilt by nasty 'canes, but, oh fukking well. Taking a few more folks off the ss rolls just might mean there's something left for the rest of us.

88 wrote:(see, e.g., the absence of slabs of ice, which were hundreds of feet thick over much of North America just 20,000 years ago, and which melted away without any help from industry or human activity).


Stupid, or just trolling?

Uhm....vocanic activity....catastrophic events....any of this ring a bell?

If you really want to lean on data, from a past observance standpoint, the global climate is still in a relatively cool period. This isn't the normal climate for Earth (if there is such a thing). It is actually a little cooler than average right now.

Oh, OK....just trolling. I was worried for a bit.

Uhm...you realize that NASA just theorized that the Earth is the warmest it's been in over one million years, right?

Not that I put too much stock in the emerging technologies that they use to decide this, but you'll fucking excuse me if I take the word of the Goddard Institute(probably the world's foremost climatologists) over you?

I think it is certifiably insane to believe that man can control the climate on the Earth by tinkering the amount of "greenhouse gases" man emits. Why do I think this? Well, because the percentage of "greenhouse gases" emitted by man are a fraction of 1% of the amount of "greenhouse gases" emitted naturally. To throw some logic at you...

Nah. But some actual stats from some credible source(ie - not you_ might make you look like less of one of the reactionary/politicized dorks I mentioned.

which is not easy considering that there is no scientific proof that the accumulation of "greenhouse gases" actually raises global temperatures).

Wow. Just...wow.

Wait, I forgot...you're trolling. My bad. Otherwise, you might look into the insulating/refracting properties of gasses.

The hurricane prediction failure is poignant because it shows the hipocracy of those who wish to implement policy based on bad science.

Agreed. Like the "bad science" you're spewing here.

My point was that the jury is still out, and will be for a long time. You've already made up your mind...which was my entire point.

A feature length film pimps that global warming creates deadly hurricanes that kill people.

And a feature length film says giant insects take over the earth.

Point?

Could it be that global warming and hurricane activity are not as closely linked as suggested in Gore's propaganda?

I'll save my judgement, since I can't be bothered to even listen to Gore's "propaganda," but maybe you should look into what causes hurricanes/typhoons and whatnot.

It's ocean warmth, dumbass. Warmer ocean = more severe hurricanes...tell me you knew?

I am not advocating that we completely ignore the climate data we observe

Of course you're not -- like all the other poli-fielled hacks, you only want to ignore data that doesn't fit in with your pet(and insignificant, not to mention laughable) theories. Status quo, for certain.

or that we cease examining the possibility that human activity is making Earth less hospitable for humans.

Once again, not a "possibility," but a "fact." Mercury in the fish out front should have told you.

I have no agenda, other than to expose those who abuse the principles of science to advance political careers. Gore and his cadry of morons have siezed upon the greatest political platform of all time. The cataclysmic event is not supposed to happen in our lifetime (so if and when they are proven wrong, they are not here to take the blame). Every time it rains, or snows, or doesn't rain or doesn't snow, they can claim that their political adversaries are responsible for it and have allowed big business to manipulate the climate because they hate black people and your children. Beautiful, really.

OK...tears over here.

"No agenda," yet you're now accusing those who you obviously have a political bone to pick with of all sorts of evil plotting, some of it pretty off-the-chain implausable/wild.

Apparently, "kicking your own ass" is part of your agenda-that-you-claim-not-to-have.

The Earth will be just fine, even if we detonate every nuclear weapon we've ever built and set fire to the whole planet.

The occurrence of an event in the future can never be a FACT. It is a prediction.

And apparently, that "kicking your own ass" thing is going absolutely swimmingly.

Educate yourself, mang.

Props on finishing so strong with that punch-line.

You mean like the kind of CO2 levels you'd see after a catastrophic event?

You guys really aren't catching on to the whole cause/effect thingy.

mvscal wrote:Observed increases in temperature precede elevated levels of CO2

Do you know what "observed" means?

Look it up in the dictionary, and maybe reword that one.

leaving your effect without an immediately apparent cause.

Uhm....nevermind. Just neverfuckingmind. You reallyreallyreally don't understand the subject as well as you think you do.

Really.

If someone else cares to point out the very basic premise of chemistry that he apparently slept through a class and missed, feel free. It's gotten too damn frustrating for me. His teachers were getting paid money and failed, so excuse me if I don't even bother trying.

88 wrote:I have a degree in chemistry

Big fucking deal. Unless you earned your degree from a university in the U&L, it reallyreallyreally don't mean shit.

try to explain your understanding of how variations in the human contribution of atmospheric CO2 affects the global climate.

Too much Beer with Mexican Food and I can personally create a Smog Alert here in the Valley.

just sayin

88 wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:

88 wrote:I have a degree in chemistry

Big fucking deal. Unless you earned your degree from a university in the U&L, it reallyreallyreally don't mean shit.

Disqualify me, then. My chemistry degree came from tOSU.

Alrighty then ... consider yourself DQ'd. And please, in the future, limit your contributions to this board to subjects about which you might have at least the faintest of clues, like football, and possibly basketball. Everybody knows that's about all Big 10 schools are good for. 'Cept for maybe Northwestern. Some of their grads are smart 'n' stuff.

88 wrote:I have a degree in chemistry, and I'd enjoy nothing more than for you to try to explain your understanding of how variations in the human contribution of atmospheric CO2 affects the global climate.

Wasn't the point of contention I had with mvscal that lead to me questioning him.

Since you have a degree in chemistry, I'll assume you understand the concept that they taught in junior high chemistry...that the warmer the water, the less CO2 can be dissolved in it.

Regardless, it complete ignores cause/effect.

Actually, I don't think we're too terriby far apart on the issue*, in that there's way more "unknowns" than "knowns." But recognizing that would cheat me out of an opportunity to call a stranger an "idiot" over the internet, now wouldn't it?


*-except you, like most, just can't seperate the politics from the (lack of?) science.


Wouldn't it be funny if with advances in the emerging technologies, the science dorks actually concluded that it was all a matter of the sun doing a routine "getting hotter" phase, and all the rest are effects? I'd laugh...particularly at Kofi "Hey America, you OWE Us" Annan.

dimwit wrote:First off, global warming is FACT. Irrefutable by anyone with any brains at this point.

Kevnic,
Leave discussions that take intelligence to others. In fact, do your children a favor and swallow the most radioactive material you can find.

Bizzarofelice wrote:Kevnic,
Leave discussions that take intelligence to others. In fact, do your children a favor and swallow the most radioactive material you can find.

Intelligent discussion? Are you fucking kidding me?

This thread contains some of the most inane regurgitation of junk science that I've ever read. Reading the Sierra Club and other environmental chicken little editorials does not make for good fact siting.

Carry on nitwits.

Jerkovich wrote:regurgitation

junk science

"Junk science" is a term used to try and discredit the vast majority who believe in it. Who uses terms like "junk science"? The right wing pundits.

Turns out the "regurgitation" is coming from the wrong source. Get that uranium sandwich ready.

Bizzarofelice wrote: "Junk science" is a term used to try and discredit the vast majority who believe in it. .

The vast majority of scientists once believed that people's illnesses were caused by a tiny man living inside them.


... until the "evil-vapors" theory came along, that is

Cuda wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote: "Junk science" is a term used to try and discredit the vast majority who believe in it. .

The vast majority of scientists once believed that people's illnesses were caused by a tiny man living inside them.


... until the "evil-vapors" theory came along, that is

Absolutely no scientists believe that getting your knowledge of science from GOP talking points is a wise idea.

I'm not a Republican.

Haven't been one for 10 years

Kevnic: May I play? I brought my own plungers for you guys to use and everything...

Cuda wrote:I'm not a Republican.

Haven't been one for 10 years

Neither is the spokesman for "global warming".

See, there's always a common ground to be found.

Regardless of one's feelings on the matter, regardless of one's scientific and/or political leanings, there will always be that one tie that binds...

We can all agree that Jerkovich the Holiday Chew Toy is a fucking idiot.

Who struggles with the concept of reading a thermometer.

Dinsdale wrote:See, there's always a common ground to be found.

Regardless of one's feelings on the matter, regardless of one's scientific and/or political leanings, there will always be that one tie that binds...

We can all agree that Jerkovich the Holiday Chew Toy is a fucking idiot.

Who struggles with the concept of reading a thermometer.

Ah yes, then there's Dimwit, spouting "scientific facts" and the consummate know-it-all. I have found that those that talk the most, in your case excessively, are truly some of the most unintelligent beings sucking up globally warm air.

Global Climate Change or not, there are plenty of good reasons to not burn fossil fuels.

Inconvenient truth indeed.

Jerkovich wrote:I have found that those that talk the most, in your case excessively, are truly some of the most unintelligent beings sucking up globally warm air.

More junk science.

88 wrote:Bizzy prefers to get his science from Democrats. So there.

Little bit more than the Democrats.


Global warming is a problem.
Sin,
the world


Nu-uh
Sin,
political party in one country

mvscal wrote: Pardon me if I'm not particularly impressed by the collective wisdom of "the world".

How about their intelligence agencies?

88 wrote: We don't know whether global warming is natural or affected by human activity, whether it can be affected by policy changes regulating human activity and/or is necessarily bad for future inhabitants of the planet.
Sin,
scientists without a political axe to grind and sane people who objectively review the data and are willing to think on their own

They are telling you to burn fewer fossil fuels. Is that a good idea or not?

mvscal wrote:Case in point.

Bizzarofelice wrote: Global warming is a problem.
Sin,
the world

Don't get me wrong here -- I'm neither convinced that global warming is a human-caused condition or not, nor am I convinced that it's a long-term problem of doom-and-gloom. I just keep an open mind, and keep the politics out of it.

And I believe that me keeping the politics out of science, I may be one of the very few, if not the only person on earth to do so.

Because frankly, be it Al Gore or Kofi Incomp, there's a money-trail to be followed. I'd take the rest of the worlds' concerns about global warming/climate change/greenhouse gasses a little more seriously if they actually offered a solution, rather than just tried to work the inevitable for the American buck.

No, America -- we never said you had to produce less CO2. We just want to to pay money to many other countries when you do...even though those countries are allowed to spew CO2 at will, because they're not as intelligent or as wealthy as you are. So, either pay up, or the rest of the world will continue to blame you for their problems.

Fucking deplorable.

Fuck off, UN...you were going to blame us for everything, anyway. Just throw "global warming" on the pile, and we'll take the "heat" for it, and keep our cayshe, thank you very much.

Supply the bulk of the UN budget, and we certainly provide the bulk of the world's technological advances...and now they want us to pay extra for doing so? I don't think so, Jackson.

Moving Sale wrote: They are telling you to burn fewer fossil fuels. Is that a good idea or not?

The correct answer, and the only correct answer --

I don't know.

Neither do you.

Neither does Al Gore.

Neither does Kofi It's-a-Scam.

Neither does the scientific community.


If in fact the rampant warming trend isn't caused by humans, and is due in full or part to more solar radiation reaching the upper atmosphere, a sudden severe reduction in the burning of fossil fuels would quite possibly a disaster of catastrophic proportions. The pollutants that fossil fuels create are shielding the planet, if increased solar radiation is in fact the cause.


A phasing-out of fossil fuels is inevitable over the next century, but who's to say it isn't saving our ass right now?

Answer: Nobody.

Not that I don't find this possibility remote, but it's certainly a possibility. Which goes back to the whole "open-minded" thing.

88 wrote: I don't know. Why would we want to burn fewer fossil fuels? Is it because we think we are going to run out of them? Is it because the by-products are bad? Is it because they cost more than other fuels? Who is saying this?

Not you apparently.

You are right dirty, high cost, hard to find, inefficient fuel owned mostly buy other people is a wagon worth hitching your horse to.

Dinsdale wrote: I don't know.

That is because you are a dumbass.

Neither do you.

Yes I do. It is a bad idea for lots of reasons even if GCC isn't on the list.

mvscal wrote: High cost? It's cheaper than bottled water and not particularly hard to find.

So you're not accounting for the cost of dead soldiers, kickbacks to Arab countries and Israeli bribes in the price of oil? Ho about he price of our country? Not included? Alright. I guess you're the deep thinker here.

Moving Sale wrote: They are telling you to burn fewer fossil fuels. Is that a good idea or not?

I think it's an excellent idea- for you!

Geeesss, this board is freaken obnoxious. Lets put this into perspective with some factual scientific data.

this belched more in one day
* Sulfuric acid
* Nitrogen dioxide
* Sulphur dioxide
* Suspended particles including PM-10, particles less than 10 microns in size.
* Benzene
* Formaldehyde
* Polycyclic hydrocarbons
* so on and so on ......
then man has burnt in the history of fossil fuels.


sorry to pop your bubble, but maybe we need to cap all of the volcano's on earth.