Global warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Past results are not indicitive of future performance. At least that's why my stock prospectuses say.

-FUDie
Agreed. Both are Chaotic systems in at least the same order of magnitude, so the results should be comparable up to that limit, if the models are just as solid.
 
:LOL::LOL::LOL:

You are far beyond reason.

Here's something to keep you busy for a while. Sice you deny the existance of global warming, would you mind providing a more solid scientif explanation for all of the following?

http://www.climatehotmap.org/namerica.html
How far back do the measurements used go, and how accurate are they?

It would be best to compare them to the year 1000, as that was the previous, naturally warm period.
 
Btw, I want to state that I don't think there's a single, universal Truth. And that it's almost impossible to disprove things that go beyond pure mathematics, but it is very hard to prove theories that do.
 
Btw, I want to state that I don't think there's a single, universal Truth. And that it's almost impossible to disprove things that go beyond pure mathematics, but it is very hard to prove theories that do.
So, I imagine you'll be able to fly by flapping your arms any day now, then.
 
Well, because our climate is still in the upswing from the last minor ice age? Or do you expect climate to be static?

It went up until about the year 1000, then it went down until about the year 1500, and then it went back up again. It's like a sine wave. Just like all the other cycles. And climate has about the longest period you can get, disregarding the lifecycle of the Sun.
 
Btw, unlike regular sine waves, natural cycles tend to spike before they reverse.

Edit: like switching a current.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. Both are Chaotic systems in at least the same order of magnitude, so the results should be comparable up to that limit, if the models are just as solid.

Chaos != Randomness.

You can have chaos in perfectly deterministic systems as well.
 
Well, because our climate is still in the upswing from the last minor ice age? Or do you expect climate to be static?

It went up until about the year 1000, then it went down until about the year 1500, and then it went back up again. It's like a sine wave. Just like all the other cycles. And climate has about the longest period you can get, disregarding the lifecycle of the Sun.
That's just made-up bullshit. Look, if there is a cycle in temperature, then there has to be a physical process driving said cycle. So, what is the physical process, hmm?
 
How far back do the measurements used go, and how accurate are they?

It would be best to compare them to the year 1000, as that was the previous, naturally warm period.

You don't get to dismiss all of that with a couple of baseless general sweeping statements.

You want to claim global warming doesn't exist? Then I want an alternative scientific explanation supported with evidence to explain each and every one of those observations.

If you can do that then your argument will at least be approaching the validity of AWG.
 
Well, because our climate is still in the upswing from the last minor ice age? Or do you expect climate to be static?

It went up until about the year 1000, then it went down until about the year 1500, and then it went back up again. It's like a sine wave. Just like all the other cycles. And climate has about the longest period you can get, disregarding the lifecycle of the Sun.

Are you just making this stuff up?

Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg
 
Are you just making this stuff up?

Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

I love the slight long term downward trend to temperatures on the graph. Well if you exclude everything from the modern era that is.

I think what the U.S.A. needs is Katrina round 2 but only this time it has to be a direct hit from a category 5 and it just has to sit right over New Orleans for a couple of days with 300km/h winds and massive storm surges just so they get the message. :devilish: Not that I want it to happen, but long term a little suffering in the short term will alleviate a lot more suffering.
 
The US would need several direct hits per hurricane season several years in a row to start penetrating the thick armor of laziness, complacency and ignorance that people there surround themselves with. Just one won't do it.
 
I love it how it became undisputable fact that increased hurricanes was a result of AGW when evidence behind it is far weaker. Especially since NOAA had only 50% success rate in guessing hurricane seasons in the last 10 years, you can do just as good by flipping a coin or guessing the same number every time. We NEVER had hurricanes 20 years ago, right?
 
The US would need several direct hits per hurricane season several years in a row to start penetrating the thick armor of laziness, complacency and ignorance that people there surround themselves with. Just one won't do it.

That'd leave New Orleans in ruins, you're cruel. :eek: However I suppose if we have a major western city all but abandoned it would probably send a message.
 
That'd leave New Orleans in ruins, you're cruel. :eek:
Heh, the gulf of mexico coastline is long, and there's the atlantic coast too...

Btw, I love corduroy's strawmen. He must feel really proud of his argumentative skills when he's knocking down claims in a single punch that nobody ever made! :LOL:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top