[Swerve22]

That neither answers the question nor proves your point.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

That neither answers the question nor proves your point.

If you were familiar with models it would.

The graph shows temperature fluctuations ultimately netting no increase. It doesn't impact the overall trend as it's such a small slice it could simply be an outlier.

[Swerve22]

You don't seem to understand the feedback theory then.

I assume you're making this argument:

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

...but ehtne you would be ignoring this:

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

There is much more carbon in the atmosphere for the past 16 years than the 16 before them, so there's no reason that temperatures should plateau unless the ideas of feedback loops and self perpetuation are false.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

You don't seem to understand the feedback theory then.

I assume you're making this argument:



...but ehtne you would be ignoring this:



There is much more carbon in the atmosphere for the past 16 years than the 16 before them, so there's no reason that temperatures should plateau unless the ideas of feedback loops and self perpetuation are false.

Not at all, the global temperature isn't solely dependent upon carbon levels in the atmosphere.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Not at all, the global temperature isn't solely dependent upon carbon levels in the atmosphere.

Then why do you automatically assume that C02 is the cause of warming when it occurs?

I see what you did there.

Correlation = cuasation for you.

No correlation =/= no causation for the other guy.

Must be nice.

[FreeEnterprise]

Maybe if Obama gave $249,000,000 in a GRANT (not loan) to a company to build batteries to store the power, we might have something.

I wish the government would GIVE me that even 1 million to build a plant. I can guarantee, that without building costs, I could turn a profit easily every year.

Oh wait, free government money is only taken FROM me and given TO liberal donors.

And then they fail.

Silly liberal "green" logic.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...tml?cmpid=yhoo

Serious question, do we keep spending billions punishing business because of "global warming" when it isn't actually warming like the scientists promised it was?...

The EPA has effectively passed "cap and trade" by proxy which is destroying the coal industry and making gas at the pump cost a fortune, all under the guise of "saving us from man made global warming". That algore promised was destroying the earff... And yet...

No warming for 16 years using YOUR data that is according to you "so accurate"...

So which is it?

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Then why do you automatically assume that C02 is the cause of warming when it occurs?

I see what you did there.

Correlation = cuasation for you.

No correlation =/= no causation for the other guy.

Must be nice.

It's not an automatic assumption, it's clearly a fact. More Greenhouse gasses cause warming, it's proven.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

Maybe if Obama gave $249,000,000 in a GRANT (not loan) to a company to build batteries to store the power, we might have something.

I wish the government would GIVE me that even 1 million to build a plant. I can guarantee, that without building costs, I could turn a profit easily every year.

Oh wait, free government money is only taken FROM me and given TO liberal donors.

And then they fail.

Silly liberal "green" logic.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...tml?cmpid=yhoo

Serious question, do we keep spending billions punishing business because of "global warming" when it isn't actually warming like the scientists promised it was?...

The EPA has effectively passed "cap and trade" by proxy which is destroying the coal industry and making gas at the pump cost a fortune, all under the guise of "saving us from man made global warming". That algore promised was destroying the earff... And yet...

No warming for 16 years using YOUR data that is according to you "so accurate"...

So which is it?

Until you answer these two questions and prove you're not willfully ignorant I'm just going to ignore you.

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

You never identified that you could correctly interpret satellite data as I asked you to do pages back.

Are the 3,000 sites valid now?

[FreeEnterprise]

Again, proving you are just trolling...

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

Again, proving you are just trolling...

Because you can't answer a basic question about what you claim disproves global warming? I can see why you have to resort to calling me a troll, your argument is dead in the water.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

Again, proving you are just trolling...

Nice dodge, bud. Seriously if you do know, just prove him wrong. What do you have to lose? If you don't answer, it is clear that you are simply full of ****.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Because you can't answer a basic question about what you claim disproves global warming? I can see why you have to resort to calling me a troll, your argument is dead in the water.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Nice dodge, bud. Seriously if you do know, just prove him wrong. What do you have to lose? If you don't answer, it is clear that you are simply full of ****.

You shrugged off the fact that the globe hasn't warmed in 16 years. Currently your logic is pretty much summed up by "it's happening because I say it does, trust my models".

If you're going to say that the 16 years is "statistical noise", then you have to admit that the previous 16 years which saw the most warming could be also.

If you're going to say only long term trends matter, then you also need to admit that the earth has been warmer than now at certain points in history.

Remember, the burden of proof is on YOU if you're trying to claim something is for sure happening. Also note that you just got not one but two thumbs up from Gonzo - you might want to rethink your logic on that basis alone.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

You shrugged off the fact that the globe hasn't warmed in 16 years. Currently your logic is pretty much summed up by "it's happening because I say it does, trust my models".

If you're going to say that the 16 years is "statistical noise", then you have to admit that the previous 16 years which saw the most warming could be also.

If you're going to say only long term trends matter, then you also need to admit that the earth has been warmer than now at certain points in history.

Remember, the burden of proof is on YOU if you're trying to claim something is for sure happening. Also note that you got not one but two thumbs up from Gonzo - you might want to rethink your logic on that basis alone.

I shrugged it off? I don't believe I even commented on it. In fact, I believe I already said I was rather uninformed about global warming. But you don't have to be an expert on global warming to tell when someone is dodging a question. I actually want to be informed on the issue and would like to see a legitimate argument made from FE's side. However all I'm seeing is him citing a study that itself comments on how useless it is and I see him dodging other studies that seem to argue the opposite. I would love for FE to make a legitimate comment about the satellite imaging. However, it is becoming more and more clear that FE cannot answer that question and therefore he (and his argument) are losing credibility fast in my mind. That isn't to say that he is wrong, but he is far from showing that he is right.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I shrugged it off? I don't believe I even commented on it. In fact, I believe I already said I was rather uninformed about global warming. But you don't have to be an expert on global warming to tell when someone is dodging a question. I actually want to be informed on the issue and would like to see a legitimate argument made from FE's side. However all I'm seeing is him citing a study that itself comments on how useless it is and I see him dodging other studies that seem to argue the opposite. I would love for FE to make a legitimate comment about the satellite imaging. However, it is becoming more and more clear that FE cannot answer that question and therefore he (and his argument) are losing credibility fast in my mind. That isn't to say that he is wrong, but he is far from showing that he is right.

Dude I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to F1 for some reason I should have paid more attention while pressing quote. My bad

EDIT: I didn't go back through the thread but I'm pretty sure FE has talked a bit about sattelite imaging either in this thread or the old GW thread from a few months back.

[FreeEnterprise]

I don't have time to go into a specific breakdown, but quickly here are my thoughts, in between the work I have to get done at my JOB...

The sun is the source of heat in our atmosphere, if the sun is blocked then we have less heat, If there are solar flares, we have more heat. So for example if a volcano erupts, it puts garbage in our atmosphere, and that garbage is hit by the sun (aka heat), and heated up. Creating a hotter atmosphere. But, it also is absorbing that heat that would normally hit the earth and soaking some of it up. Meaning that the earth would be cooler than normal... And we have had quite a few volcanic eruptions since the 90's.

Those make the atmosphere heat up from all the garbage up there (much more than anything we create through man made pollution).

So if anything, more garbage (pollution) in our atmosphere would actually lower temperatures on earth, as the atmosphere would be absorbing the heat that normally hits the earth.

To say that me running my car would affect the atmosphere is just silly. The earth is MASSIVE, and I could spend my entire life polluting as much as possible, and it wouldn't even REGISTER how little I could pollute...

But, if ONE volcano erupts, you get more pollution from that one event than all of our pollution in the USA for generations.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volc...e_effects.html

The whole man made global warming scam hinges on temperatures rising from mans influence on earth (aka pollution). And yet, if the last 16 years when China has been pumping out an astronomical amount of pollution to supply the world with their products.

Why would temperature rates stay the same?...

IF man made global warming was true, the temps would go up, as we haven't curbed polluting by our industries.

The satellite temperature readings have shown different readings than the temp stations here on earth (many of which are next to parking lots, and a/c units) which everyone understands is "sketchy" (except a few on here...)

And yet, even with those sketchy readings, IT STILL shows no warming over the past 16 years...

And satellite readings show no warming since 78... Now global warming "scientists" have attempted to manipulate that data to ADD warming to those readings, by adjusting the numbers... As it doesn't fit their "needs" of proving warming is happening.

In other words, the hype is clearly being used to raise energy costs. Which is clearly working with the price of gas being so high now.

Is the earth better off?... Or is it just a scam...

Why would any "study" that show warming be trumpeted, while any study that shows NO warming be quietly released on the internet and ignored by the media?

[tmanbuckhunter]

Cows farting makes the earth hotter; death to all cows. Mmmm steak.

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by tmanbuckhunter

Cows farting makes the earth hotter; death to all cows. Mmmm steak.

Unfortunately its true. Even planting a large amount of trees diverts and locks up a good portion of water.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

I don't have time to go into a specific breakdown, but quickly here are my thoughts, in between the work I have to get done at my JOB...

The sun is the source of heat in our atmosphere, if the sun is blocked then we have less heat, If there are solar flares, we have more heat. So for example if a volcano erupts, it puts garbage in our atmosphere, and that garbage is hit by the sun (aka heat), and heated up. Creating a hotter atmosphere. But, it also is absorbing that heat that would normally hit the earth and soaking some of it up. Meaning that the earth would be cooler than normal... And we have had quite a few volcanic eruptions since the 90's.

Those make the atmosphere heat up from all the garbage up there (much more than anything we create through man made pollution).

So if anything, more garbage (pollution) in our atmosphere would actually lower temperatures on earth, as the atmosphere would be absorbing the heat that normally hits the earth.

To say that me running my car would affect the atmosphere is just silly. The earth is MASSIVE, and I could spend my entire life polluting as much as possible, and it wouldn't even REGISTER how little I could pollute...

But, if ONE volcano erupts, you get more pollution from that one event than all of our pollution in the USA for generations.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volc...e_effects.html

You're confusing particulate matter with greenhouse gasses. Particulates in the upper atmosphere do reduce global temperature but greenhouse gasses increase them. Particulates eventually fall, CO2 doesn't.

Did you read that article? It directly contradicts you.

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions.

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

The whole man made global warming scam hinges on temperatures rising from mans influence on earth (aka pollution). And yet, if the last 16 years when China has been pumping out an astronomical amount of pollution to supply the world with their products.

Why would temperature rates stay the same?...

IF man made global warming was true, the temps would go up, as we haven't curbed polluting by our industries.

The satellite temperature readings have shown different readings than the temp stations here on earth (many of which are next to parking lots, and a/c units) which everyone understands is "sketchy" (except a few on here...)

And yet, even with those sketchy readings, IT STILL shows no warming over the past 16 years...

And satellite readings show no warming since 78... Now global warming "scientists" have attempted to manipulate that data to ADD warming to those readings, by adjusting the numbers... As it doesn't fit their "needs" of proving warming is happening.

In other words, the hype is clearly being used to raise energy costs. Which is clearly working with the price of gas being so high now.

Is the earth better off?... Or is it just a scam...

Why would any "study" that show warming be trumpeted, while any study that shows NO warming be quietly released on the internet and ignored by the media?

You've just presented one plausible reason as to why over the previous 16 years we've had no net increase in temperatures that could be attributed to short term effects.

You still have yet to show you can clearly interpret satellite data. One looks hotter, the other colder, can you tell me why?

[Swerve22]

Until you realise how large the hole is in your argument F1, I'm going to continue quoting myself:

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Then why do you automatically assume that C02 is the cause of warming when it occurs?

I see what you did there.

Correlation = cuasation for you.

No correlation =/= no causation for the other guy.

Must be nice.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

You shrugged off the fact that the globe hasn't warmed in 16 years. Currently your logic is pretty much summed up by "it's happening because I say it does, trust my models".

If you're going to say that the 16 years is "statistical noise", then you have to admit that the previous 16 years which saw the most warming could be also.

If you're going to say only long term trends matter, then you also need to admit that the earth has been warmer than now at certain points in history.

Remember, the burden of proof is on YOU if you're trying to claim something is for sure happening. Also note that you just got not one but two thumbs up from Gonzo - you might want to rethink your logic on that basis alone.

You're not wrong on your points, but the data is there.

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Until you realise how large the hole is in your argument F1, I'm going to continue quoting myself:

The hole being that we have proof of global warming over the long term?