More global warming

This entire argument continues to get stupider and stupider.

The Flat Earth society should not just threaten to hold their breaths... But threaten to hold their breaths in a laundry bag...

You want to know what really effects weather? Rivers. Large rivers. For those of us who live around Kansas City we are always being told that the weather north of I-70 is different from below I-70. I-70 runs parallel with the Missouri River. When I was stationed in New London I lived right on Bank Street. One day it was raining like crazy. In the 30 feet between my front door and my car I was soaked to the skin. When I arrived at the base for softball, only seven miles away, it was dry and dusty. The cause? The Thames River between New London and Groton. Rivers have more effect on weather than man does. So do mountains. I was driving up the Sierra Nevada mountain range in the early 90s in snow storm. People pulling over for chains, people sliding off the road, cars tapping each other on the highway and then I got to the top and nothing. I arrived in Reno where it was almost 70s degrees with ice all over my car. Only a distance of 8-10 miles. What a difference. As for California's drought, which state has been trying to change their weather longer than any other? California. Maybe they succeeded and got it wrong again. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

That is maybe the most idiotic post on this subject I've ever seen. We are talking about climate, not weather. Or do I need to post Neil DeGrasse Tyson again so he can school you on the difference?

You want to know what really effects weather? Rivers. Large rivers. For those of us who live around Kansas City we are always being told that the weather north of I-70 is different from below I-70. I-70 runs parallel with the Missouri River. When I was stationed in New London I lived right on Bank Street. One day it was raining like crazy. In the 30 feet between my front door and my car I was soaked to the skin. When I arrived at the base for softball, only seven miles away, it was dry and dusty. The cause? The Thames River between New London and Groton. Rivers have more effect on weather than man does. So do mountains. I was driving up the Sierra Nevada mountain range in the early 90s in snow storm. People pulling over for chains, people sliding off the road, cars tapping each other on the highway and then I got to the top and nothing. I arrived in Reno where it was almost 70s degrees with ice all over my car. Only a distance of 8-10 miles. What a difference. As for California's drought, which state has been trying to change their weather longer than any other? California. Maybe they succeeded and got it wrong again. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The diff in temp in K.C. north of the river has more to do with the heat island effect than the river. It was why I lived north of the river.

You can't really buy into anything Cornholio, if you are without any capital... in this case INTELLECTUAL capital.

Who's offering you bullshit? That is, besides the chef in the cafeteria at whichever dorm or ward where you live/must live. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Just because you state something does not make it fact or even of value you grubered musselman he-bitch !
I got your "intellectual" hanging bitch !

First paragraph; your sarcasm reveals a level of misunderstanding. The Caribbean gets no snow because of it's position relative to the equator. The hydrologic cycle (water cycle) is completed when the precipitation falls back to earth. The air over the Caribbean is usually warm, making snow impossible. And so it falls as rain. That's basic stuff that you learn in third grade. Seriously.

Second part; the temps were not at their highest during the mesozoic, not even close. Was it warm? Yes, but far from this statement you made, 'this is also the period in Earth's history when temperatures were at their highest.'

The mesozoic era you mention, was roughly 185 million years or so, containing within it three periods. To imply, as you did, that the entire era was the same is just disingenuous. The very first period, Triassic, began with an extinction event and ended with an extinction even, for example. There were periods of warming and cooling. No, they have no evidence of polar ice caps, but the fluctuation in temps could still allow for them. In other words, they are not statistically impossible.

As for climate affecting weather, that's again, ignorant. The only difference between the two is time. Weather is the shorter time period. Climate is weather over a LONG period of time. So it's not really a matter of one affecting the other. They are entwined.

Why do rising temps result in bitter cold winters? I really shouldn't have to explain this to someone who wants so badly to come off as intelligent, but here goes. Bitter cold winters where? In small pockets of the globe, here and there. Climate change is a global issue. A cold winter here and there doesn't disprove overall warming of the entire planet. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

UC - you seem like a smart guy, though not as smart as LexusLover, but we will leave that aside for now.
Possibly not as smart as COG, either....I digress.... Plus, you express yourself very well.
I put it to you, sir:

Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a statistically significant global warming is occurring now, and that man is the major driver of it?

UC - you seem like a smart guy, though not as smart as LexusLover, but we will leave that aside for now.
Possibly not as smart as COG, either....I digress.... Plus, you express yourself very well.
I put it to you, sir:

Do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a statistically significant global warming is occurring now, and that man is the major driver of it? Originally Posted by DSK

I believe that scientists live to disprove other scientists wrong, if in fact they have the evidence to do so. The fact that a very high percentage of scientists recognize that even a small increase in CO2 can have a large effect on the climate, and the very same high percentage agree that human activity contributes the largest amount of that CO2, leads me to believe the evidence points towards yes. People will say that we were cooling off just a few short decades ago and so we are just fluctuating, but they don't really understand how climate works. There will be fluctuations, but you have to look at a much larger section of data than just a few decades. You have to look at thousands or even millions of years. Every reputable scientific organization or science society says the earth is warming and that it's highly probable the cause is humans. I believe the best evidence we currently have says the answer to your question is yes.

Again, you're confusing weather and climate. They aren't the same thing. But please, continue on in ignorance, if that is what you choose to do.

here, let a black man school you, if you can stomach it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

while Neil DeGrasse Tyson is clearly smarter that you .. his own "facts" might need some checking.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/13/...os-gets-wrong/

http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/6...cetime-odyssey

this of course .. is his remake of Sagan's COSMOS" series. and they can't even fact check it before the show runs?? please ...

a few "gems" ..

Radio waves are not “tiny pieces of dog fur from the olden days,” as Tyson insists.

Tyson's explanation of mountains as “God’s boobs” is incomplete at best.

I have NO IDEA wtf he means here ...

Tyson's theory that dinosaurs
“willfully ceded the planet to cavemen and moved to the moon after they discovered the skull of Moses in the underwater city of Atlantis” is interesting but in sharp contrast with more widely accepted theories


There is no factual evidence to support Tyson's oft-repeated declaration that “all Mexicans smell like cheap laundry detergent because they lack moral fortitude.

well! that one sounds prejudiced if not outright racist doesn't it?
yet underpants thinks 'ol Neil is so smart .. figures.

of course there's the "plausible" take that he says all this oddball shit to "dumb down" the show .. which makes the show both useless and stupid

















Dinosaurs on the Moon! RIGHT!!!!
and NASA is covering that up too !

did i mention that he flat out lied about Sagan "mentoring" him? he did. Sagan wrote him a letter in reply to his letter while he was in High School. Big Deal.

(In fact Tyson wrote to Sagan first, according to Sagan’s 1975 letter. Sagan did not write to Tyson unsolicited as Tyson has repeatedly claimed.)

http://gotnews.com/breaking-neil-deg...ip-carl-sagan/

Newly examined letters between pop science celebrity Neil deGrasse Tyson and astronomer Carl Sagan show that Tyson may have been fibbing about being mentored by Sagan.

HA. this guy is as bad a Brian Williams "embellishing" his experiences in covering Katrina and the Iraq War. keep drinking the koolaide underpants.

I will believe him in the area of anything scientific LONG before I even read anything you have to say on the subject. He is an astrophysicist. You probably have trouble even saying the word. You realize funny or die is a comedy website and not news, yes?

Yes, climate and weather are independent of one another. This, of course, is why the Caribbean gets frequent snow storms for no apparent reason. It is also why I usually put my ice trays in the stove when I want to make ice. Because, of course everyone knows that when things heat up, water freezes.

Now, does anyone remember their geology classes? Anyone remember the Mesozoic Era? It spans roughly 160 million years, and is divided into three periods: the Triasic, Jurasic, and Cretaceous Periods.

Does anyone remember what is unique about this era? Yes, it was the era of the dinosaurs, when Earth supported some of the largest species in its entire history. Anyone know why dinosaurs flourished and grew to such prodigious size? Because this is also the period in Earth's history when temperatures were at their highest - no polar ice caps at all throughout most of this era. Because of the warm temperatures, Earth supported some of the most verdant growth of its history as well, providing ample fodder for massive herbivores which then provided ample prey for massive carnivores. Nifty huh?

Hence, my skepticism of some of the ridiculously dire predictions that accompany the global warming cultists. None of them can explain why two growing seasons all the way up the middle latitudes is a terrible thing. Nor can they explain why an overabundance of water caused by melting ice caps would result in massive stretches of desert conditions. Kind of like they can't explain why rising temperatures results in bitterly cold winters. Oh wait, I know, because climate does not affect the weather. Better tell the Jamaicans to bundle up for the next snow storm. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Errrr dinosaurs didn't actually grow big simply because "it was hot". (The woolly mammoths lived during the ice ages after all.)
The grew big (according to one theory) because there was excess amount of carbon dioxide in the air, which in turn fueled excessive vegetation growth (plants need CO2). The extra nourishment lead to their enormous sizes. Sure temperatures were also high in those eras, but there's that whole cause-effect thing that you're missing. Thanks for the laugh though! It's pretty clear you never went to those "geology classes".

As for the rest of your argument, sorry, but I would rather defer my "projections" to people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about. Those people are called climate scientists, and 97% of them agree that climate change is exacerbated by human activities, with likely hazardous effects. Hence your "skepticism" amounts to a little more than a pile of shit.
"overabundance of water caused by melting ice caps would result in massive stretches of desert conditions"? that's some top-notch scientific exposé right there. No words for this one

UC - you seem like a smart guy, though not as smart as LexusLover. Originally Posted by DSK

The constant logging in and out must be tiring, eh LLIdiot?

The constant logging in and out must be tiring, eh LLIdiot? Originally Posted by shanm

Hmmm, I thought DSK was the post wager handle of choice for JLIdiot!

You could be right though!

LLIdiot and JLIdiot were like 2 peas in a pod.

I believe that scientists live to disprove other scientists wrong, if in fact they have the evidence to do so. The fact that a very high percentage of scientists recognize that even a small increase in CO2 can have a large effect on the climate, and the very same high percentage agree that human activity contributes the largest amount of that CO2, leads me to believe the evidence points towards yes. People will say that we were cooling off just a few short decades ago and so we are just fluctuating, but they don't really understand how climate works. There will be fluctuations, but you have to look at a much larger section of data than just a few decades. You have to look at thousands or even millions of years. Every reputable scientific organization or science society says the earth is warming and that it's highly probable the cause is humans. I believe the best evidence we currently have says the answer to your question is yes. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

OK - that is a good answer. I'm going to continue to study the subject and try to find something that makes me buy into it. I don't reject it outright but so far the incremental temperature changes are so small that it isn't yet quite definitive enough. Plus, the only real problem I see is that coastal areas might flood more often in the next 100 years. As long as we build new stuff at higher elevations, we will have a cheap solution.
As for flooding coastal cities, look what Galveston did after the 1900 hurricane. They raised the grade and turned many first floors into basements, or put jacks underneath the buildings and raised them up. Also, they didn't receive massive federal funding to do it.

Sorry, DSK, but OverCompensation gave a stupid answer. He admits that it takes thousands, maybe millions of years of data to determine climate trends, and then says that the Earth is warming and it's because of humans. That does not make sense. OC is agenda driven, and oblivious to facts he himself posted.

Sorry, DSK, but OverCompensation gave a stupid answer. He admits that it takes thousands, maybe millions of years of data to determine climate trends, and then says that the Earth is warming and it's because of humans. That does not make sense. OC is agenda driven, and oblivious to facts he himself posted. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Times be changing, OldGeezer. Scientists can predict and track atmospheric/climatic changes for periods longer than BILLIONS now.

Sorry, DSK, but OverCompensation gave a stupid answer. He admits that it takes thousands, maybe millions of years of data to determine climate trends, and then says that the Earth is warming and it's because of humans. That does not make sense. OC is agenda driven, and oblivious to facts he himself posted. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

COG - you make a good point. Perhaps overcompensation would like to rebut it?