Stuff Republicans say.

[sun rise]

I think there are clearly far more instances of people directly literally claiming global warming, evolution etc as proven undeniable fact. As opposed to merely talking about them as if they were.

Most people of faith acknowledge their faith, and even doubts from time to time. Faith is inherent to religion, and I think ironically- that's the more scientific approach. I have faith there is a God in the same sense that we both have faith that when we get in a car we will arrive safely at our destination, and we operate on that assumption.

the farmers, the millions of victims were the 'science deniers'

Present evidence from a reputable historical source of your contention and I'll review it. The evidence needs to include proof that his victims were science deniers and that this denial led directly to their deaths.

 

[sun rise]

No, greater temp variability is the exact opposite of what the greenhouse effect does. It is a form of insulation, it warms colder areas disproportionately - this is not controversial in science, in climastrology perhaps.

Venus is a perfect example, almost pure CO2 atmos, baking hot temps, which hardly vary from pole to equator- thus very little wind either at surface. Don't take my word for this, it's pretty basic stuff- no computer sims needed.

Yes, Climategate reminded them how hard it was to keep secrets. But that global governments have an interest in advancing global governance... is hardly a conspiracy theory!
...

Politicians exploit truths and facts for their own purposes. This does not make the facts false. There are many ways of dealing with global warming which does not increase the power of government.

 

[sun rise]

No, greater temp variability is the exact opposite of what the greenhouse effect does. It is a form of insulation, it warms colder areas disproportionately - this is not controversial in science, in climastrology perhaps.

You might be right about temperature variance but for the wrong reason. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7462/full/nature12310.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130815 has what I think is a good review.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

a couple of molecules in 10000 is not massive. No data shows any casual correlation other than CO2 fluctuations lagging temp by 8-900 years. The opposite is only observed in computer simulations. Global warming predicted that snow coverage, albedo effect, would lessen as one of the simulated feedback loops essential in multiplying a tiny forcing into a Hollywood disaster movie..

That all depends on what is being mixed. One small drop, in any mixture, can either go unnoticed or it can have dramatic effects.

Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab show the 2014 fall Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent exceeded 22 million square kilometers, exceeding the previous greatest fall extent recorded in 1976.

And, as has been explained to you, climate change/global warming also predicts this a part of erratic weather patterns caused by disrupting the Earth's natural cycles. It predicted things getting worse on both ends. And I even acknowledged this extra snow and cold as fact. But, as the name sake implies, the Earth's average temperature has been increasing; Also the few years we're into the 21st century are already taking their places as the warmest on record. It never predicted less snow or it going away. It actually predicts the opposite of what you are claiming it predicts.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That all depends on what is being mixed. One small drop, in any mixture, can either go unnoticed or it can have dramatic effects.

And, as has been explained to you, climate change/global warming also predicts this a part of erratic weather patterns caused by disrupting the Earth's natural cycles. It predicted things getting worse on both ends. And I even acknowledged this extra snow and cold as fact. But, as the name sake implies, the Earth's average temperature has been increasing; Also the few years we're into the 21st century are already taking their places as the warmest on record. It never predicted less snow or it going away. It actually predicts the opposite of what you are claiming it predicts.

sure, and two molecules CO2 in 10000 air does practically nothing, that's what the simulated feedback loops are for. That's why the Oridivician ice age had> 4000 ppm CO2.Earth's GH effect is overwhelmingly driven and determined by water vapor, that is by far the primary GH gas at far greater concentrations.



It predicted less snow, many predicated that snow would be a thing of the past in temperate regions. Nobody predicted the record global snow cover observed
If the 'albedo feedback' that global warming relied on is correct- that means were headed for an ice age, not global warming.

The placating effect of the GH effect is unambiguous, it's an insulation, it warms cool areas more than already warm areas= less temp contrast= less available energy for weather systems overall.

There is a very specific fingerprint to warming from GH effect, a more even, stable, calm, warm atmosphere, like venus.
Consider that the largest most violent storms in the solar system- exist on extremely cold planets compared to earth, like Jupiter and Saturn. extremely cold but with greater variation due to lack of GH effect i.e. it's not heat that drives weather systems, it's the contrast between heat and cold. think spring storms- there is more heat/cold contrast in spring than fall yes?

There was a grain of truth to the old global warming theory, adding a few molecules CO2 technically does trap heat, all be it infinitesimally..
the new pop science 'climate change' belief, that any undesirable weather is somehow exacerbated by CO2, is simply scientifically illiterate, it exists only in computer sims.

 

[metis]

sure, and two molecules CO2 in 10000 air does practically nothing, that's what the simulated feedback loops are for. That's why the Oridivician ice age had> 4000 ppm CO2.Earth's GH effect is overwhelmingly driven and determined by water vapor, that is by far the primary GH gas at far greater concentrations.



It predicted less snow, many predicated that snow would be a thing of the past in temperate regions. Nobody predicted the record global snow cover observed
If the 'albedo feedback' that global warming relied on is correct- that means were headed for an ice age, not global warming.

The placating effect of the GH effect is unambiguous, it's an insulation, it warms cool areas more than already warm areas= less temp contrast= less available energy for weather systems overall.

There is a very specific fingerprint to warming from GH effect, a more even, stable, calm, warm atmosphere, like venus.
Consider that the largest most violent storms in the solar system- exist on extremely cold planets compared to earth, like Jupiter and Saturn. extremely cold but with greater variation due to lack of GH effect i.e. it's not heat that drives weather systems, it's the contrast between heat and cold. think spring storms- there is more heat/cold contrast in spring than fall yes?

There was a grain of truth to the old global warming theory, adding a few molecules CO2 technically does trap heat, all be it infinitesimally..
the new pop science 'climate change' belief, that any undesirable weather is somehow exacerbated by CO2, is simply scientifically illiterate, it exists only in computer sims.

Just more BS, and I don't think too many of us are going to swallow this garbage.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just more BS, and I don't think too many of us are going to swallow this garbage.

another well informed counter argument, very compelling...

don't swallow anything from anyone Metis, you sound intelligent enough to me, don't let anybody tell you that you are not smart enough to figure this out for yourself.

 

[metis]

another well informed counter argument, very compelling...

don't swallow anything from anyone Metis, you sound intelligent enough to me, don't let anybody tell you that you are not smart enough to figure this out for yourself.

But an important part of growing up is recognizing the fact that there are many people smarter than we may be, and that maybe it's wise for us to listen to them, while at the same time being aware of the fact that some people will try and sell us snake oil.

Peer-reviewed science takes the approach of cross-checking evidence, much like we were told to do with math problems when in school, and making sure that the snake-oil salesmen's spiel was counteracted without going as far as censorship.

So, beware of snake-oil salesman-- oh, and snake-oil saleswomen as well. Ya know, some people tend to be highly gullible, especially those heavily caught up in what psychologists call "confirmation bias".

BTW, why don't you cite your source?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But an important part of growing up is recognizing the fact that there are many people smarter than we may be, and that maybe it's wise for us to listen to them, while at the same time being aware of the fact that some people will try and sell us snake oil.

Peer-reviewed science takes the approach of cross-checking evidence, much like we were told to do with math problems when in school, and making sure that the snake-oil salesmen's spiel was counteracted without going as far as censorship.

So, beware of snake-oil salesman-- oh, and snake-oil saleswomen as well.

smarter= more correct? I'm sure Hoyle was smarter than I am, as were the astronomers who discovered canals on mars, the recent Gliese 'earths' and gravitational waves..all enjoyed the blessings of peer pressure review
Lemaitre's original work did not and Galileo had to publish his illegally

Snake oil sailsmen, paranormal investigators, astrologers, and climastrologers all have their own peer reviewed journals, who are we to question them?

Similarly those sacrificing their wealth to witch doctors to appease the weather Gods thousands of years ago, were unqualified to challenge their expertise.

'cos we say so' is the furthest thing from science. you explain to me how 2 CO2 molecules in 10000 causes climate disruption...

the fact that you cannot does not make you stupid, nobody can, there is simply no scientific mechanism

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But an important part of growing up is recognizing the fact that there are many people smarter than we may be, and that maybe it's wise for us to listen to them, while at the same time being aware of the fact that some people will try and sell us snake oil.

Peer-reviewed science takes the approach of cross-checking evidence, much like we were told to do with math problems when in school, and making sure that the snake-oil salesmen's spiel was counteracted without going as far as censorship.

So, beware of snake-oil salesman-- oh, and snake-oil saleswomen as well. Ya know, some people tend to be highly gullible, especially those heavily caught up in what psychologists call "confirmation bias".

BTW, why don't you cite your source?

my sources are observations, measurements, repeatable experiments, not opinions, media, politicans, computer sims

Storms are stronger in spring when there are contrasting warm and cold air masses, this is not controversial

That global warming should warm the poles disproportionately is undisputed by both sides- this would even global temps , reduce weather energy, just like Venus- but to a tiny degree

like any insulation, each layer contributes diminishing returns, you have to keep doubling CO2 logarithmically to achieve the same small linear forcing.

i.e. we'd need to accelerate economic activity-CO2 emissions at the same rate as we did over the last century, to gain the same tiny effect in the next. That would mean fantastic news for the global economy, but I doubt we will be so lucky

 

[metis]

smarter= more correct?

That was neither stated nor implied, so all you've done here is to create a disingenuous straw-man argument.

Snake oil sailsmen, paranormal investigators, astrologers, and climastrologers all have their own peer reviewed journals, who are we to question them?

To equate the above with peer-reviewed science is like calling an orange the "moon" because they're both round. Science uses the scientific method, whereas the others undoubtedly don't.

 

[metis]

my sources are observations, measurements, repeatable experiments, not opinions, media, politicans, computer sims

There's an old saying that any person who tries to legally represent themselves in court has a fool for a lawyer. The same is true in the area of science.

Global warming is actually taking place because it's based on actual measurements, not estimates nor models, the latter of which you continue to post even though it's clearly a bold-faced lie. I cited sources for that, which it appears you disregarded because you keep coming back and belching the same old nonsense.

So, how in the world could you logically know global warming is not taking place without relying on others for information? Have you traveled the world over during the last 200 years taking measurements? Have you measured the amount pf CO2 over the last 200 years?

So, what were your "observations" of this world-wide phenomenon? How did you take these "measurements"? How did you perform these "repeatable experiments"?

All I see from you is a near total disregard of reality.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There's an old saying that any person who tries to legally represent themselves in court has a fool for a lawyer. The same is true in the area of science.

Global warming is actually taking place because it's based on actual measurements, not estimates nor models, the latter of which you continue to post even though it's clearly a bold-faced lie. I cited sources for that, which it appears you disregarded because you keep coming back and belching the same old nonsense.

So, how in the world could you logically know global warming is not taking place without relying on others for information? Have you traveled the world over during the last 200 years taking measurements? Have you measured the amount pf CO2 over the last 200 years?

So, what were your "observations" of this world-wide phenomenon? How did you take these "measurements"? How did you perform these "repeatable experiments"?

All I see from you is a near total disregard of reality.

Anybody can measured the air temperature in a rural area and at the weather station at the airport to be several degrees different. Therefore yes, I know that land measurements are hopelessly unreliable, hopelessly incapable of measuring fractions of a degree across the globe and across decades. The only thing remotely close to an accurate measurement is the direct satellite data, which dates only to '79 and does not show the warming claimed by 'processing' the land data.

Anybody can also feed large amounts of CO2 to plants and observe the remarkable positive effect, an unambiguous fact which is notable a sore point in climastrology

similarly we can do experiments with light and slits in cardboard to demonstrate how light acts as a wave as well as a particle

I can measure the red shift in a galaxy millions of light years away

mind bending concepts like relativity are held to practical results in GPS devices every day

This is how real science can be demonstrated, whether by an individual fool like Galileo, or a global government agency of 'experts' like the IPCC

For global warming, big foot, ancient aliens
no such repeatable experiment, direct observation, accurate measurement, only computer simulations, suggestions, opinions, theories.

I don't think you are a fool or a liar, again, name calling only betrays the fact that your position is emotionally based and cannot be altered no matter the evidence.- as our friend Hoyle demonstrated

 

[metis]

Anybody can measured the air temperature in a rural area and at the weather station at the airport to be several degrees different. Therefore yes, I know that land measurements are hopelessly unreliable, hopelessly incapable of measuring fractions of a degree across the globe and across decades. The only thing remotely close to an accurate measurement is the direct satellite data, which dates only to '79 and does not show the warming claimed by 'processing' the land data.

Anybody can also feed large amounts of CO2 to plants and observe the remarkable positive effect, an unambiguous fact which is notable a sore point in climastrology

similarly we can do experiments with light and slits in cardboard to demonstrate how light acts as a wave as well as a particle

I can measure the red shift in a galaxy millions of light years away

mind bending concepts like relativity are held to practical results in GPS devices every day

This is how real science can be demonstrated, whether by an individual fool like Galileo, or a global government agency of 'experts' like the IPCC

For global warming, big foot, ancient aliens
no such repeatable experiment, direct observation, accurate measurement, only computer simulations, suggestions, opinions, theories.

I don't think you are a fool or a liar, again, name calling only betrays the fact that your position is emotionally based and cannot be altered no matter the evidence.- as our friend Hoyle demonstrated

What we know about global warming is actually more reliable than what we know about quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, relativity, the behavior of photons, etc. To me, it's clear you've bought into a right-wing political agenda that's anti-science, as we've seen with a fair number of others here at RF.

BTW, I did not call you a "fool" but was merely using a commonly heard expression about people trying to operate out of an area that they ain't that familiar with, so sorry if you thought I was calling you names.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Really republicans...really..???

A New Mississippi Bill Would Allow Church-Owned Vehicles to be Driven By People Who Don’t Have the Proper License

 

[sun rise]

What we know about global warming is actually more reliable than what we know about quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, relativity, the behavior of photons, etc. To me, it's clear you've bought into a right-wing political agenda that's anti-science, as we've seen with a fair number of others here at RF.
...

And elsewhere, sadly. I know there are conservatives who are concerned about climate change and have interesting ideas about how to deal with it but too many ignore the truth and in so doing ignore God's plan for the world.

People like the author of the following piece to me have a great insight into what is going on and understand what responsibility God has given us for the world. Too many today are under the sway or at least influenced by the "father of lies".

Are Climate Skeptics Ignoring God's Design? is one such piece:

Beisner and Limbaugh, in peddling the notion that God designed the earth and its atmosphere to be immune from mankind's actions, are also implying that we can do anything we want to it without serious consequence.

Does that sound like something God would say?

Actually, it sounds a lot more like something the snake in the Garden of Eden would say.
...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It predicted less snow, many predicated that snow would be a thing of the past in temperate regions. Nobody predicted the record global snow cover observed
If the 'albedo feedback' that global warming relied on is correct- that means were headed for an ice age, not global warming.

Even Lisa Simpson, the girl whose head is my avatar, explained this. A cartoon character. Extremes on both ends are a part of what has been predicted with climate change. I suspect that is the reason society has gradually moved away from the term global warming, as replacing it with climate change. Apparently, even though the Earth is warming up, people had a hard time wrapping their minds around how an average increase in temperature could cause some places to see colder temperatures and more snow.
In all reality, to use the cold and snow as "evidence" against global warming is an upfront admission that you don't even know what global warming is, or what it predicts will happen. It's on par with how saying evolution is "just a theory" is an upfront admission you do not understand science, the difference between hypothesis and theory, and just how many theories exist that damn near everyone holds as being true (such as germs and gravity). It's like trying to debate Marxism with a Marxist even though you yourself have never read anything by Marx or Engels. It becomes very obvious and very clear when someone claims to have knowledge of something when they actually do not.

 

[sun rise]

...
In all reality, to use the cold and snow as "evidence" against global warming is an upfront admission that you don't even know what global warming is, or what it predicts will happen. It's on par with how saying evolution is "just a theory" is an upfront admission you do not understand science, the difference between hypothesis and theory, and just how many theories exist that damn near everyone holds as being true (such as germs and gravity). It's like trying to debate Marxism with a Marxist even though you yourself have never read anything by Marx or Engels. It becomes very obvious and very clear when someone claims to have knowledge of something when they actually do not.

Indeed so.

I once knew someone who had an unanswerable argument against evolution. He claimed that God created the world just like one of the two accounts in Genesis and then performed a miracle to make it appear as if the world is as science knows it to be today. Of course I did not buy it for a second, but I gave him credit for coming up with something that did not pretend scientific facts don't exist. And I gave him points for intellectual creativity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Even Lisa Simpson, the girl whose head is my avatar, explained this. A cartoon character. Extremes on both ends are a part of what has been predicted with climate change. I suspect that is the reason society has gradually moved away from the term global warming, as replacing it with climate change. Apparently, even though the Earth is warming up, people had a hard time wrapping their minds around how an average increase in temperature could cause some places to see colder temperatures and more snow.
In all reality, to use the cold and snow as "evidence" against global warming is an upfront admission that you don't even know what global warming is, or what it predicts will happen. It's on par with how saying evolution is "just a theory" is an upfront admission you do not understand science, the difference between hypothesis and theory, and just how many theories exist that damn near everyone holds as being true (such as germs and gravity). It's like trying to debate Marxism with a Marxist even though you yourself have never read anything by Marx or Engels. It becomes very obvious and very clear when someone claims to have knowledge of something when they actually do not.

An enhanced greenhouse effect would primarily, disproportionately raise temperatures in the coldest regions/ higher latitudes at night in winter, because it's a form of insulation. It doesn't create heat, it merely traps it, yes? So I agree the effect is not even, but that does not mean any observation at any time in any place supports global warming. By definition that makes the theory utterly unfalsifiable.

the temp here last night was -40F. That's a record, not just for the day, that's the coldest temperature ever recorded. and at a high latitude at night in winter. This is the exact opposite of evidence for global warming. there is no way around that.

Of course it does not in itself destroy the entire theory, this is not a black and white issue, but the new 'climate change' belief that any and every observation supports global warming is as unscientific as it gets, it's a superstition, no more. Not withstanding the superior intellect of cartoon characters or any other pop media/' pop science source.

 

[Midnight Rain]

An enhanced greenhouse effect would primarily, disproportionately raise temperatures in the coldest regions/ higher latitudes at night in winter, because it's a form of insulation. It doesn't create heat, it merely traps it, yes? So I agree the effect is not even, but that does not mean any observation at any time in any place supports global warming. By definition that makes the theory utterly unfalsifiable.

the temp here last night was -40F. That's a record, not just for the day, that's the coldest temperature ever recorded. and at a high latitude at night in winter. This is the exact opposite of evidence for global warming. there is no way around that.

Of course it does not in itself destroy the entire theory, this is not a black and white issue, but the new 'climate change' belief that any and every observation supports global warming is as unscientific as it gets, it's a superstition, no more. Not withstanding the superior intellect of cartoon characters or any other pop media/' pop science source.

Actually the reason why it isn't even is because the wind current systems as well as the ocean current systems in the world are delicate processes that are altered when things change. Much of what caused the terrible winter last year and the cold snaps now have to do with alterations to the wind currents in the Arctic region just north of us here. That Arctic wind and water current mainly just goes in a circle and doesn't drift south by very much. Changes (because of global warming) in the temperature and pressures of different wind systems in the world have caused a disruption in the wind currents at the north pole and surrounding religions which causes more cold air to drift southward.