I think the “politically correct” way to say this is that there is an increased probability that these events will occur, so a greater chance a cyclone won’t flounder crossing the Caribbean and restrengthen before it hits New Orleans. There’s a small chance to begin with, just how much are the odds improved with AGW theory? As a Denialist of the Third Degree, I agree with GW theory and I agree that man’s activities are contributing to this … however I think this is a good thing: belch that CO[sub]2[/sub], suckers, I dare ya.
I know my cat posted crap on her CatBook page, but seriously, if she didn’t want me to chase her why does she run from me? It’s a game we play, honest, it’s not like I’m stupid enough to catch her. I checked your cat’s page, is that you carrying the 5-gallon bucket of tuna-fish?
One of the many cats I keep wants to insure I’m familiar with the internal anatomy of the wide variety of rodents who thrive nearby, I just wipe up all the blood an love on him, it’s who he is.
I found the equations I was looking for … on Wikipedia[may God have mercy on us] … and their sources go back basically to the ICPP 1990 report … meh …
I’ve combined the two equations, I see no reason why not. The results are confined to just the CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere and make no consideration of any other factor that effects climate.
So, using 280 ppmv gives us ∆T of 0, that’s our reference:
400 ppmv => +1.53ºC
520 ppmv => +2.66ºC
640 ppmv => +3.54ºC
Alarming results indeed, I almost piddled myself looking at these. Tried something else … using the Ice Core Data I determined that at glacial maximum, typically we see -8ºC for 185 ppmv … and for glacial minimum +2ºC for 285 ppmv. Plugging in 185 as the reference I’m getting +1.8ºC at 285 ppmv. A far cry from the +10ºC … so …
I find researching stuff far more interesting than playing SIWOTI, so after seeing this latest idiocy from the internet, I did a quick check on the definition of cherry picking, or “to cherry-pick”, which is probably interesting to almost nobody.
the SS uses cherrypicking, but it means the same thing. It’s understood that using a select bit of a record to try and deceive others is called cherry picking now, and it’s pretty common knowledge.
Examples abound, and it’s one of the easiest things to debunk, when the data is available.
I’m going to have to disagree with you there, there was 40 acres in cherries next to our walnut ranch. Harvesting the cherries required going through the whole orchard every day just picking the ripe ones, for weeks. We could leave the walnuts on the tree until they were all ripe and harvest them at once.
Thus, cherry-picking is the art of selecting just the information you want in order to support some position … as the cherry-picker selects just the best ripest fruit in the orchard.
Yes, I spent some years on a nut farm growing up …
I keep telling myself not to even comment on the latest idiocy, but sometimes it’s just so perfect.
You know how sometimes it seems the people who are always preaching about global warming seem a little off? Like they actually want bad shit to happen? So they can be right? (never mind the horror and suffering of actual people, they don’t seem to care about them at all)
Here’s an example of the pure Two Minutes Hate that I see regularly from people who want to be viewed as good people, who care about the world, and want to help us.
I think you make a lot of claims about climate theory that don’t stand up. Who says the land is supposed to warm more than the oceans? It makes more sense for the oceans to warm faster, particularly in the arctic, see the discussion above of the arctic’s delta.
And it isn’t the case that cold boreal winters amount to a flummoxing of AGW theory. On the contrary, direct observational evidence supports the conclusion that warming arctic oceans cause colder boreal winters. Climate models also support this. Don’t take my word for it, ask some peer-reviewed scientists, from here:
I am puzzled-Obama just made a speech about the horrors that await us-if we do not halt CO2 production. Just a few weeks ago, he authorized Shell oil to begin test drilling in the Arctic Ocean-isn’t this a contradiction? How will obtaining more fossil fuels (off Alaska) help us in the fight aginst AGW?
I must say that this makes no sense.
A lot of people? What about the authors of the paper I just cited? They are where climate science comes from- published, peer reviewed work. I’m not talking about a lot of people.
In the context of the real McCoy, it seems global warming theory is a mystery to you.
He’s capping emissions to slow US emissions over the long term, focusing more on power plants and vehicles. I don’t agree with drilling there either, but apparently he thinks we can do both. Maybe it has to do with further undermining OPEC in the short run, I’m not sure.
It’s also about the fact that the President is a politician and a pragmatist and not a demon Socialist out to destroy the world with his evil Liberal agenda. As some talk radio hosts would have us believe.
No, and your extreme ignorance is representative of the idiots who are always running their mouths online, who don’t actually know shit. And even when you give them a clue, they continue on, being ignorant puss bags who never learn a goddamn thing. I don’t want you to feel singled out, and there is plenty of stupid to go round.
With the plethora of idiocy abounding of late, it’s impossible to even describe the level of ignorance infecting the “reasonable” forums, making the Pit seem like the calm rational center of the Doper Universe.
Ironic. And quite amusing. Each time I start to post about it, another dumb post shows up, it’s a never ending circle jerk of self perpetuating stupid, there is no stopping it. I’m so sick of THAT global warming.
The following quotes are from multiple other threads, follow the links to see where. This first one was really hard to resist responding to, because it is SO FUCKING STUPID it is beyond words.
This fuckhead in the link actually describes global warming as a big fire in the woodshed. You have to read it to fully appreciate the idiocy he is spreading.
It’s hard to mock somebody who uses the name “Really a dumb as fuck shithead”, so it’s all good.
Yes they do. So when the IPCC claims Indias water supply will be gone by 2035, maybe sooner, because the glaciers will be gone, they need really good evidence. Anyone who questions such a wild claim doesn’t need any evidence, since such an extraordinary claim would need extraordinary evidence to support it. Instead, there was actually NO evidence at all, but that didn’t stop idiots from repeating it as fact for two years, before it was retracted.
No you fuckhead moron, it’s the person making a claim who has to show his work, lay out the evidence, and anyone who is involved in science already knows anything new will be attacked and challenged, that’s how science actually works.
The person making a claim, especially an extraordinary claim, has to provide the extraordinary evidence, the person challenging the claim need only show the evidence is weak, wrong, or in the case of the IPCC, it doesn’t even exist.
This wholesale effort to try and turn science upside down is the realm of hucksters, frauds, cons and some really poor climate science.
I don’t have to provide any evidence at all to counter some idiots claim. Like this one from Chris Woodford, directed at children.
No you dumb as fuck idiot. Are there no editors? Did you not run this by anyone before publishing? Seriously. What the fuck?
If you have to use a goddamn timber shack, at least make the fire the constant, and add more insulation to the shack, so that the same amount of heat causes the interior of the shack to get warmer. That would be closer to the CO2 greenhouse theory. Where the fuck do these people come from?
I saw that from the link by Lightnin’
Please do not tell these dumb fucks I pitted them. They might show up in this topic, and that would suck so bad.
Well, it seems you are quoting science from 2006-2007, and I am quoting peer-reviewed material from… this year. If nothing else, I am more current. Look at my cite a second time, FX.
