What you say?!:eek:
Because weather is climate.
Oh. I got confused. I thought your anecdotes were supposed to rebut people who were making arguments about the climate. But you were just trying to shoot the shit about the weather. I always thought talking about the weather was the kind of thing people did when they had nothing else useful to say. I’ll leave you to it, then.
I would say you don’t understand sarcasm online, but your response was sarcastic, so that can’t be the problem.
The obvious humor of mentioning record cold events, like the coldest winter ever in history for Chicago, most snow ever recorded in parts of the US, longest snow season ever recorded for Wyoming , record cold temps in May for Texas, or August for Atlanta, unbelievable events like the Moscow blizzard in May, or the record great lakes ice situation, that obvious humor seems like a childish tit for tat for all those times that every dry hot day, heat wave or drought is called global warming.
But that isn’t the belly laugh. No, that comes when you read the scientific literature, and look at the data.
If “banging your head” includes falsely claiming to have defined “global warming” then I would have to agree with you.
Lol, “imbecile” includes anyone who actually challenges warmists to define their terms, let alone substantiate their claims.
Potentially one could but there is no need to because the global climate is definitely changing, just like it’s been changing for millions of years.
When the facts don’t support your claims, then double down on insults. That’s how warmers convince skeptics that we are all doomed.
The irony of this is really off the scale and resembles an onion, there are so many layers (it resembles an ogre as well, but in different ways). 
I’m just thankful that you are on this global warming kick and have seemingly dropped nuclear power and Fukushima.
Yes, because FXMastermind has been hurling the lion’s share of the insults in this thread. :rolleyes:
The Fukushima disaster, an ongoing event, is a lot like global warming. In the sense of how people view things.
Two big differences. A lot is being done every day to try and stop the Fukushima disaster from getting worse.
And the really big difference? Fukushima actually is happening.
Figured I’d check back into this thread every once in a while, just to make sure it’s still about FXMastermind going full retard with his Weather Reports from Around the World while fetal alcohol sperglord brazil84 plays his sniggering Salacious Crumb.
Confirmed. À la prochaine, mes chers messieurs.
I quoted some really disastrous predictions from Lovelock, which even Gigiogalloper dismissed, admitting James Lovelock has changed his mind and no longer believes in the doomsday scenario that dominated a decade ago. He recognizes what most intelligent skeptics have realized, and says clearly what the problem is.
Here we have one of the most outspoken fear mongering warmists of all time stating clearly that the global warming fuckheads appear religious. Does that give a true believer in warming pause?
Of course not. Just like when Dyson clearly explains the problems with the hysteria that so often dominates the media and even scientists who should know better.
It’s like I somehow can predict the future!
You ever notice how not a single “global warming” thread on the dope boards ever keeps going for very long? New ones are always started, but they just fizzle out. (Google shows there are about 5,610 of them now)
You would think that the single most important issue facing mankind would have a long running great debate thread, that has been going on for a decade or more.
Since it’s extremely obvious that no “really smart person” who believes global warming is a great danger, and needs to be stopped, has ever discussed, explained or even linked to the theory of AGW in this topic (or any other topic here), a quick reminder of what AGW, or global warming is about.
And of the top of my head here is some more science shit and so forth.
The predictions from the AGW theory are simple, even when the mechanism and physics behind them are not. Many of them are assumptions, based on physics. The theory is best known as the enhanced greenhouse theory of climate change.
Obviously a greater global temperature is the first. This means the heat balance of the globe will be higher, due to a CO2 increase, as well as other greenhouse gases. Less OLR should be measured at the top of the atmosphere, which causes a gradual warming of the oceans, land and lower atmosphere.
Once an equilibrium state is reached the OLR will match the incoming solar energy.
The signals of AGW, or fingerprints of warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect (EGE), are both predicted, and important because they are what is used to confirm that the theory is accurate. These changes are critical for both the theory as well as science, because past climate changes have happened, that were thought to be driven by “natural variations”, which is code for volcanoes and solar influences. This is a simple explanation, so if any fuckhead wants to nitpick just assume changes in solar energy or insolation from orbital cycles or angles falls under solar influences.
To be able to say climate change is due to the EGE the warming has to fit with the predictions, which are based on the theory. The warming from CO2 is predicted to cause the initial warming.
Because ocean warming is very slow, the greatest warming will be over land.
The greatest warming will be during winter. At high latitudes in the NH.
And possibly warming will happen over very dry desert areas.
These are all due to the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere,. Everything else staying the same, a doubling of CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm should, according to physics and shit like that, cause the average global temperature to be 1 degree C warmer.
I would say these are basic facts, but even those simple things are actually disputed by some. A small minority, but at least nobody in this thread has claimed CO2 has no effect at all. (that opinion is however, out there)
From here on in it gets very complicated, with almost every bit of it disputed.
Hell, even the part about the most warming in high latitudes during the NH winter is disputed, but only by fuckheads who seem to hate putting anything down in black and white.
The definition was given earlier and explained carefully.
Global warming is not about weather. Rather, it refers to an increase in average global temperature anomaly.
Everybody knows what the popular definition of global warming is.
What Brazil (and a few others) have asked, is pretty simple.
if your definition of climate change includes every possible thing, including record cold and snow, it is meaningless. If you can’t state clearly the predictions made by science, by theory and the models based on it, then it isn’t science.
It’s meaningless.
None of this means there aren’t specific predictions, things assumed to have to happen, it’s just that nobody who is sneering and trying to mock, is able to discuss them.
In fact, it seems the more somebody is sure of what is happening, the less they actually know about climate and science.
Record cold and snow refers to weather, not climate. For more details, consider
“Does cold weather disprove global warming?”
In general,
“The difference between weather and climate”
Boehner Says He’s ‘Not Qualified’ To Talk About Climate Science.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/29/3442887/scientists-rip-boehner-climate-comments/