Yes, you are clear on your definition … Global warming is the abnormal increase in average global temperatures. Everything you’ve posted about this is completely true, based on this definition. This is fairly good example of the logical fallacy of “Begging the Question”. If all warming is abnormal, then any warming is not normal.
Typically, global warming is defined as any warming for any reason … including the warming that is completely normal and expected.
No, you have not. For the atmosphere to be of equal mass and approximately equal composition … equal energy levels must mean equal temperatures. One gram of Helium that holds 520 Joules of energy will have a temperature of 100 Kelvin. Any other gram of Helium that holds 520 Joules of energy will also have a temperature of 100 Kelvin … no exceptions in the Newtonian Universe. The same is true of the atmosphere. That’s why they’re called the Laws of Thermodynamics.
I lived briefly in North Carolina, and I agree that what little tax money that’s available for environmental clean-up is better spent on current and on-going pollution. They have 100 years to add three feet to their seawalls. They can safely let the grandchildren of those being born today deal with that problem. When I lived there, everybody threw their garbage into the rivers, the landfills were all but unused.
As a rule of thumb, anybody who lives east of the Sierra Nevadas are complete morons.
That thread has several examples of B84’s “I no longer engage with this poster” nonsense. Yes, it is a confirmed fact that he doesn’t use the board’s ignore function and that he does, in fact, read but not acknowledge posts by people on his list.
Note that after we called him on that “I no longer” garbage, he stopped openly acknowledging even that much.
It’s your business if you want to defend a half-witted racist douchenozzle, but you’ll have to do way better than this assbrained excuse for a comeback. At any rate, the level of “scientific” discourse he demonstrates in his racist threads should give anybody pause about any side he does support in a debate.
Yes, really. Just like what you just did. Rather than state your evidence, you posted a link to a site that does not show the evidence for global warming. For example, that site uses this fallacy as it’s prime evidence of global warming.
That is the opening “evidence” that AGW is happening. You can read it there for yourself. The second “evidence” is
The third “evidence” is
So instead of actual evidence, they do the exact thing that Brazil has pointed out.
That site is far worse, as it simply states for the most part, signs of a warming climate, nothing about AGW at all. They even have a key point dead wrong.
This is another example of the group think blind spot science that dominates these organizations. That NASA site doesn’t even include the word “theory”, or “predictions” or “predict” in the entire page.
It’s all about warming, but nothing about AGW, which is the point here. AGW has specific fingerprints, based on the theory, that we must observe, to know that it is actually CO2 increase that is the primary cause of the changes, because we know from climate history that climate changes, with out a human cause.
It’s a key part of the theory, because otherwise it’s just idiotic “two things happened at the same time so one caused the other” thinking, which is the opposite of science.
You never asked for “my” evidence. You said no one can link to evidence of global warming. I linked you to some. Whether you like that evidence or not does not matter. I did what you said no one can do.
Asking me for my evidence is weird because I personally have none. I am not a scientist engaged in collecting evidence on global climate change.
As for your dislike for those sources you are clearly a person for whom no evidence will be sufficient. You cherry pick parts you think you can nitpick away and assume that is sufficient to cast into doubt the mountains of evidence from numerous and disparate lines of inquiry that all point to the same answer.
They cite numerous lines of evidence for global warming and include links to various studies they are drawing their evidence from. You can argue with the brief abstract they wrote to be understandable to a layman audience or you can tackle the actual evidence they provide.
They do explain the human link here. You even quoted from them earlier about it.
While I know it just won’t matter, I was talking about the following claims. None of “the evidence” posted supports them.
Where is the evidence to support that claim? Isn’t it really just you being insulting?
That’s not what he said, but even so, no evidence to support the claim.
And there is a claim exactly like many of the global warming claims. No evidence to support it, just some crazy ass claim.
Of course if you actually can support that claim with evidence, I would be interested. I mean, some anonymous fuckhead’s opinion about another anonymous person on the internet is just so important to discuss.
And if you can’t tell that’s sarcasm, get off the internet.
No, they don’t. You don’t realize this because you don’t actually know anything about global warming. Most people don’t.
Those pages are one reason for this. They never actually explain the theory, or how we can know it’s happening. That’s the essential shortcoming of most of the global warming movement.
It’s why you won’t find the theory on Wikipedia, on skepticalscience, or in any post from some fuckhead alarmist warmer.
They actually do not know what they are talking about.
You know why I don’t take Brazil to task in this thread? Most of the time? Because he doesn’t post nonsense, bullshit or a constant stream of puerile insults, like most of the self assured fuckhead warmers do.
But you can be damn sure if I find something he, or anyone states, to be deceptive, stupid, arrogant or wrong, I will comment on it.
It’s the goddamn internet, that’s what people do. So keep burning fossil fuels and typing out sacre stories and being a judgemental prick, because that’s how to change the world. You fucking hypocritical bastard fuckhead you.
You are a goddamn beautiful special snowflake, with your anger and angst, your burning mission, and your hypocrisy. Shine on you crazy carbon based life form.
Right, thermometer readings … what the hell did you think warming was defined by, barometric pressure, humidity, spot price for silver in Amsterdam? I’m only giving one citation, because even if I post a thousand, you will NEVER agree with me. That’s your choice. I’m sure your Eliza app vomits out something different from Skeptical Science, but I’m sticking to the people with 10,000 thermometers and the fastest computers in the world.
To say man-kind’s contribution to this above defined global warming is abnormal is to denounce man-kind as a part of the environment, which is strictly a Christian point-of-view. Those that believe that bullshit evolution crap would say man-kind’s contribution is perfectly normal and expected. If nature doesn’t like it, she can mutate a virus and wipe us all out, just like she did 50,000 years ago (although this last claim is highly speculative).
So, we have to take your word for “Typical”, then? Sure…
IME, “Global warming” is generally used specifically to refer to the current, unprecedented episode of warming, and contextually, if not explicitly, linked to anthropogenic causes. As your own NOAA cite does - it directly references the human origin of GHGs on that same page, so it’s wrong to say it’s referring to " any warming for any reason". Context, context, context.
a) I think you have me confused with Straw-GIGO as to app use - hell, I’m not sure I’ve even posted any SkepSci links in this thread.
b) your own link gives the lie to your statement.
Bwaahaha!!! Tell me more about my “Christian point-of-view”, funny man…
Gosh, I know this fallacy…the implicit part being that “normal” and "expected’ equate to “desirable” and “good”
I have no fucking clue what you’re talking about here - what virus?
I claimed he didn’t use the board’s ignore function and used a personal “ignore” list that didn’t actually ignore posts.
You claimed there was no evidence.
I posted direct evidence that this was the case - he friggin’ used the “quote” function of the board - and you still claim there’s no evidence of that claim?
Clearly, reality parted ways with you a ways back. Time to go find it again.
ETA: Hell, Vinyl Turnip came up with a half dozen more direct examples not long after my post. Is it opposite day again?
Most people don’t? Well the people who are experts on the climate are far and away in agreement that AGW is real and happening. The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in support of it.
Those opinions have not changed. IIRC every country on the planet with a science academy agrees that AGW is real.
Here is a list of US organizations that agree AGW is real. Such know-nothings as the American Meteorological Society or the American Physical Society or the American Association for the Advancement of Science not to mention previous citations from dummies and know-nothings like NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming. The consensus is overwhelming. I would submit that these science agencies DO know what they are talking about.
To suggest this is all from some “fuckhead alarmist warmer” is conspiracy theory crackpot nutter stuff at its finest. Scientists LOVE to disagree. If some scientist can disprove global warming they will go straight to Oslo to collect their Nobel Prize along with $1 million and their place in history.
Interestingly those most opposed to the idea of AGW are those who have a distinct financial stake in discrediting it (e.g. oil companies, coal companies and others). There is nothing new to this sort of thing. Not so many decades ago the company that brought us leaded gasoline worked diligently to tell the public that lead was fine and there was no harm from it. It goes without saying (I hope) that lead is certainly harmful to humans.
Were that debate happening today I have little doubt you’d be lined up on the side of the people making leaded gasoline and telling us there is no evidence it is harmful.
So you are annoyed by a simple thing? You post “evidence”, and instead of any acknowledgment that you did, it is just pushed aside, and described as “that isn’t evidence!”. Would that be an accurate description of what you see happening? In regards to your claims abut Brazil?
(I hope that is what you see, since that is exactly what I did)
You would be completely wrong. Not only was I part of the fight to remove lead (and not just from gasoline), I also fought to remove the replacement, which was actually far worse for groundwater contamination. It’s why they use ethanol now to boost the octane, rather than incredinly toxic compounds like methyl-tertiary-butyl ether. The 1,3-butadiene in the exhaust also was extremely damaging. It’s why gas pumps have cancer warnings on them now.
I also fight against mercury pollution, deforestation, wetland destruction, oil wells, coal mining and erosion. Also pollution from run off from farmlands (one of the most horrific shitfuck fuckhead things you can imagine)
I just don’t get where this attitude comes from. I am opposed to human caused damage to the world, not for it.
My views and hatred of things like coal (which has mercury in it as well as radioactive material, directly responsible for many deaths and disease, world wide) are a bias I have to fight to avoid when looking at data. My desire to have all oil and coal based combustion replaced withe solar/wind/nuclear/renewable fuels is also a problem.
My points and rants about global warming have nothing to do with my personal desires. If the evidence showed global warming was happening, I would be ranting about the looming disaster. If there was any evidence at all to show the “human fingerprint” had emerged from the gradual warming cycle we know has happened since the LIA, I would be all about that. If the early predictions/assumptions used to model climate change were happening, I would be going on and on about them.
It’s the skullfuckery, dishonesty and outright fraud and idiocy that gets my gears grinding. This is true for the idiots who claim nothing we do will change anything. That is even more odious to the rational mind than the idiots screaming “10 degrees C by 2100!”. OK, not by much, they both are really stupid.
When i used to go on and on about MTBE and how dangerous, stupid and fucking insane to have it in the drinking water supply, people used to say I was nuts as well. I simply do not give a fuck what you think.
Here’s a soft pedal about the danger of what lead was relaced with.
And so you know, leaded gas is till used on farms and in light aircraft. Grandfathered in. Lead levels in airport and farm workers is still a problem.
Don’t get me started on pesticide and herbicides. There’s a problem far larger than the imagined global warming.
Then there is the changes to all the worlds large rivers. And high altitude NO and H2O pollution. And CfCs. One has to pick one’s battles.