evil_gop_liars Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I agree, we will all look back a chuckle at this.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Local weather guy said the average temperature for the year was 9/10 degree cooler in 2010 than in the average year since they've been keeping records. I'm sure that is just weather, and not climate, but I'd love to have someone tell me when the weather becomes the climate. Is a year climate? What about a decade? Or do we have to go farther back? If so how much farther? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Local weather guy said the average temperature for the year was 9/10 degree cooler in 2010 than in the average year since they've been keeping records. I'm sure that is just weather, and not climate, but I'd love to have someone tell me when the weather becomes the climate. Is a year climate? What about a decade? Or do we have to go farther back? If so how much farther? IMO, climate is decades while weather is this week, next week. No need to take my word for it. NASA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Th earth is how old ? and how many massive changes has it gone through ? How many more changes will it go through ? Through history of time of mankind's existence on earth , we have contributed alot to the earth some good , some not so good , but i refuse to believe that we ourselves alone have created and or seriously contributed Global warming and i dont believe we alone can stop it In the end i do beleive as the earth changes , so do the we as humans ...adaptation and survival continues 7 billion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 IMO, climate is decades while weather is this week, next week. No need to take my word for it. NASA. Note that perch said his LOCAL weather guy. Global temps: Global Highlights * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for November 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). This was the second warmest such period on record. 2004 was the warmest November on record. * The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for fall (September–November) 2010 was the sixth warmest on record for the season, 0.58°C (1.04°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). * For the 2010 year-to-date (January–November), the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average—the warmest such period since records began in 1880. * The November 2010 Northern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest November on record, while the Southern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature was the 13th warmest November on record. * The November 2010 global land surface temperature was the warmest on record, at 1.52°C (2.74°F) above the 20th century average, while the November global ocean temperature tied with 1987 and 2008 as the tenth warmest on record, at 0.39°C (0.70°F) above average. * The January–November 2010 Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature was the second warmest such period on record, while the Southern Hemisphere was the fourth warmest on record. Perch's guy is discussing local weather, but perch would rather have that be climate since it fits his preconceptions. Out in LA it's been raining for nearly a month straight, but I know the Gobi desert is still there. The higher temps are pushing the jet stream all over which is now why some areas have different (sometimes cooler) temps than before. All that aside, it isn't hard to figure that with the Arctic ice sheet melting away that places more moisture into the atmosphere which no doubt partially explains the snowfall we've seen thus far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 Whoo Hoo!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Yes, we all get it. Even you don't think you know what you are talking about. We also get that you are a blind, elitist, partisan hack with poor to no manners. The point is that the WHOLE conversation is based on contradiction. Newton's Laws basically show that EVERYTHING has an influence on EVERYTHING else. So we make it a little warmer here. Could 4 BILLION or so 100 watt light bulbs be the culprit and not our cars? No one factor in the environment is going stop or change what is going on in either of the perpetual cycling directions. It just is. Accept it, live clean and reduce the POISONS we produce that are actually much more dangerous to our immediate survival that Climal Warmging (or whatever you are calling it this month). Seen a picture of Beijing lately? If I lived there, CO2 would be the LEAST of my worries! I refuse to have the mercury laden florescent bulbs in my house. I am waiting for LED technology to catch up. My neighbors more than a few times have quipped (all funnin') about the "California dude's" HUGH pile of recyclables every week compared to the one (if that) puny bag of regular trash. I feel no shame in my role on taking care of my environment, and all the elitist brow beating and BS spewed from your rude pie hole isn't about to change the facts and realities. As I have said before, our actions will kill us off as a species, or we overcome and survive. It is very simple. If you are worried about the planet and the other animals and that is the basis of your desire to curb CO2 emissions (which your posting history does not support), then I could sympathize with your desire. However, your position has been the control of other people and their actions and redistribution of wealth through political muscle. To say anything else would be disingenuous and further define yourself as the "progressive" imperialist that you truly are. I have experienced few in my life that come as close to being a true Nazi as exhibited by the propaganda you spew on these boards. I am your problematic child looking at you and saying, "Look, the king is is wearing no clothes". Our very existence raises the temperature around us. Why does a room get hot with so many people in it with poor ventilation? My problem is the methods that you want to take to stop "the problem", with no proof that it would work. The redistribution strategy attached to the "fix" is really all you care about. You need to be honest about this with yourself before MOST people can take you or your "position" seriously... at which point, and you know this at a visceral level, will then be flushed down the pooper along with all the other crap and biodegradable TP because the real truth of what you want, not what you say will be exposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Taking all of the science out of it for a second... Is it naive to think that us little ants can have a major impact on this huge orb that has been going through temperature cycles for billions over years? Maybe. I think it is more naive to think that 7 billion people pumping a seemingly unlimited number of toxins into the atmosphere every hour isn't going to have a negative impact in some fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Taking all of the science out of it for a second... Is it naive to think that us little ants can have a major impact on this huge orb that has been going through temperature cycles for billions over years? Maybe. I think it is more naive to think that 7 billion people pumping a seemingly unlimited number of toxins into the atmosphere every hour isn't going to have a negative impact in some fashion. Word Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 Wow, bushy you were right. SCIENCE!!!! Global Warming: Dire Prediction for the Year 3000 You got that! The year 3000! SCIENCE!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 Climate vs. Weather! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The master pragmatist. George Carlin. Racy language for those who do not know him. Probably posted before, but worth a repeat/reality check. I miss him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I think it is more naive to think that 7 billion people pumping a seemingly unlimited number of toxins into the atmosphere every hour isn't going to have a negative impact in some fashion. Yup except its been happening for at least a hundred years ...on a smaller scale 100 years ago compared to now but certainly people have been effecting the earth from the first day they stepped foot on it which is a lot longer than 100 years ago To believe that we suddenly have this massive , global changing , earth shattering effect now to such a degree does not seem possible ...and more so to believe we are the major factor in the change or the only factor seems even more impossible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 To believe that we suddenly have this massive , global changing , earth shattering effect now to such a degree does not seem possible ...and more so to believe we are the major factor in the change or the only factor seems even more impossible Cumulative effect mean anything to you? Tipping point? Delayed action? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Cumulative effect mean anything to you? Tipping point? Delayed action? Sure ...i did not say we have not contributed to any change , but i dont believe we are the only reason for changes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Sure ...i did not say we have not contributed to any change , but i dont believe we are the only reason for changes The others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The others? earth changes , universe changes ,atmosphere changes ...and not always because of what we do do you believe we are 100 % responsible for current changes to earth , climate , etc ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 earth changes , universe changes ,atmosphere changes ...and not always because of what we do do you believe we are 100 % responsible for current changes to earth , climate , etc ? Mostly, yes. While there are undoubtedly natural cycles, the difference this time around is in the speed of the changes in relative terms. Human development has not been linear, it has been (and still is) exponential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 (edited) Yup except its been happening for at least a hundred years ...on a smaller scale 100 years ago compared to now but certainly people have been effecting the earth from the first day they stepped foot on it which is a lot longer than 100 years ago The Industrial Evolution spanned the 18th/19th centuries. We've been around a lot longer than that. Like Ursa said, you shouldn't expect changes to be linear. I fail how to see how one logically concludes humans impacting the environment "seems impossible." Edited January 18, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 The master pragmatist. George Carlin. Racy language for those who do not know him. Probably posted before, but worth a repeat/reality check. I miss him exactly, I'm not concerned with saving the Earth....we have a better chance at saving "God"....if God even needed to be saved... the only reason we should clean up our act is so that the earth doesn't feel the need to do a little house cleaning (again) which would leave about a half a mil population I guess?.... we should be trying to clean up our act so that we can continue to perpetuate our own existence...and continue whatever it is we want to continue doing ala buying/consuming...popping pills and fornicating....etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Taking all of the science out of it for a second... Is it naive to think that us little ants can have a major impact on this huge orb that has been going through temperature cycles for billions over years? Maybe. I think it is more naive to think that 7 billion people pumping a seemingly unlimited number of toxins into the atmosphere every hour isn't going to have a negative impact in some fashion. Which is why there is a population control conspiracy in affect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 The master pragmatist. George Carlin. Racy language for those who do not know him. Probably posted before, but worth a repeat/reality check. I miss him Why can't a semi serious lib like bushy watch that and just be real? You know why? They have a religion, a truth they seek. Their lives depend on a human boogie man. Sad Really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The Industrial Evolution spanned the 18th/19th centuries. We've been around a lot longer than that. Like Ursa said, you shouldn't expect changes to be linear. I fail how to see how one logically concludes humans impacting the environment "seems impossible." understood ...never said its impossible to believe that humans could impact the environment i actually feel they definitely do...what i said was i don"t believe that effects on environment , earth , etc are all caused by humans and that humans were 100 percent to blame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Man it's Penny Laneing cold!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) ..what i said was i don"t believe that effects on environment , earth , etc are all caused by humans and that humans were 100 percent to blame That's a fact in which there should be no disagreement. But what you blatantly said was that humans affecting the climate in a negative manner " to such a degree does not seem possible." I'm not sure what degree you are talking about, but you seem to heavily insinuate it shouldn't be a concern. An overwhelming majority of scientists who are experts in climate and study the cause/effect and rate of warming and CO2 increases over the last 100 years compared the last 500K years disagree with you. There were brush fires before humans. That does not mean humans can't cause brush fires or we should minimize concerns towards preventing or mitigating brush fires. Edited January 22, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.