Global Warming: CA Officials Tell Skiers to Stay Home, Too Much Snow

submitted by useless_aether from breitbart.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

You're arguing against 10 years ago. It's called "Climate change" not global warming. Because when the global temperature increases, it causes extreme weather on both sides, because it causes the jet stream to absorb more energy and become curved. So it juts down farther south (and north) than it used to, leading to extreme hots and colds, which we are seeing.

This whole "it's cold, therefore global warming is false" is a super outdated and tired argument...

Not saying I'm 100% on board with the climate change narrative, but lets at least make intelligent counter-arguments about it

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Climate change is a hoax, bro.

The climate scientists falsified the data, which is what climate gate is all about. It's one facet of the agenda 21 globalist plan. Want to see a Great YouTube video?

Also, anyone who claims that the science is settled is either lying, or doesn't understand the fundamentals about the scientific process.

Science is never, ever, settled. Fundamentally.
If scientist say shut up and don't ask questions, then it's time to closely investigate whatever they're covering up.

Unfortunately, we have all been had... :-(.

Edit:. It's called climate change, cause CO2 kept increasing, but the average temp remained stable, or declined. Hence the falsifying of data to fit the model's forecast..

Many surface temp recorders indicate an increase over time.

However, there's a satellite that has been measuring avg temps for over 20 years, and it's recorded measurements are stable. Crucially, the measurements on the satellite cannot be easily be tampered with.

Food for thought...

[–]robertrobot 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

It's called the scientific method, and it does form a "settle" on a conclusion, which you are able to verify with your own experimentation.

For example, I hypothesize if I throw a brick through a pane of glass, the glass will shatter and the brick will fly through.

Testing... ... Yes, yes the brick does break the glass.

Conclusion: throwing a heavy brick through a thin sheet of glass will cause the glass to shatter.

Settled, QED.

brb. I have to do some quick explaining to my neighbor about why his front window is now broken..

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

The analogy is funny.

The settled science argument is a fallacy, in this case. The climate models and data was not maid available for peer review. The doctoring of evidence was revealed when the emails leaked.

Peer review and reproducibility weren't tested.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The settled science argument is a fallacy, in this case.

Just because some people were faking evidence to further support the established consensus doesn't mean that the established consensus is now invalid. That's a fallacy too.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If the theory is legit then falsifying data isn't necessary. Data is falsified to fit bad theories.

wizzwizz4, I've noticed that you are inclined to support "established consensus" where data is falsified.

Is it really that difficult to imagine that we've been misled?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

wizzwizz4, I've noticed that you are inclined to support "established consensus" where data is falsified.

That's because the non-falsified data is sufficient for me.

Is it really that difficult to imagine that we've been misled?

It's easy to imagine that we've been misled. I personally have been misled about loads of stuff! But, to my knowledge, this isn't one of them.

And honestly, you're being as short-sighted as the politicians if you think that this is about the money. I don't want us all to die. I honestly believe that this is one of the most pressing concerns. The legislation should be attacking the companies that are doing more damage than us plebs could ever hope to do, but that doesn't mean that we're not capable of doing little things ourselves to make a little bit of difference and buy us a little bit of time.

But no, just because you're spinning the narrative, I won't admit to something I believe – for what I think is a set of good reasons – is false.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I personally have been misled about loads of stuff! But, to my knowledge, this isn't one of them..

You should start your own sub, and this should be the title.

It's hilarious on so many levels!!! ;-)

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For the record, this comment doesn't address the points I've made. You're just pointing a finger and laughing at me, while surrounded by a gang of zero.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I threw a heavy brick at my greenhouse (reasonably hard; it was pretty heavy!) and it didn't shatter – but then it shattered when I threw a tennis ball at it quite softly the next morning.

OH NO! That means that throwing bricks at windows making them smash was a hoax!

New hypothesis(es):

  • Throwing objects at panes of glass damages those panes of glass (different ways of throwing different things can cause different amounts of damage); if this damage is above a certain level, the pane of glass will shatter.
  • The passage of time increases damage to an already damaged pane of glass. (The day-night cycle, perhaps?)

Thus, a simple hypothesis has exploded into what will probably form an entire new branch of science. I've got more questions than I've got answers. Is this an improvement over "throwing heavy bricks at thin sheets of glass makes them shatter"? A resounding yes; we can predict less than we could earlier, but those predictions were sometimes wrong.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Climate change is a hoax, bro.

I mean it seems it might be exaggerated, and the source might not be humans, but the weather is really strange the last few years. The fact the climate has changed seems pretty undeniable. Even the OP article shows that, with "just 5 inches short of 30-year snowfall record"

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

My friend, I am in complete agreement about variation, and changes on climate. That is common. I'll try to find you a great JRE where a guest cites multiple excellent historical examples of decades long increases and declines in global temp since the dark ages.
The social and economic impact of the changes. For example:.

  • Farming in Greenland
  • Growing wine grapes in England (pre-GMO).
  • Longer Summers ushering in the renaissance economic boom.
  • The boom in great cathedral construction that swiftly ended from a cold period; and increased starvation, etc.
  • I forget the specifics of the cold trends (lack of advancement is the boring norm)

I'll try to find the link.

On a related tangent; The tremendous water erosion on the back of the Sphinx, and Sphinx enclosure walls suggests that these structures after many thousands of years older than the Pyramids, as there are no signs of water erosion on the Pyramids...

The tremendous water erosion (+3ft deep in solid stone) suggests that the Sphinx was likely surviving as an ancient structure long before the end of the last ice age (13,000 years ago)....

It's worth considering details such as these as we ponder climate change, and the survivability of the human race. Even if humanity had to start from scratch (as it clearly did)... :-/.

I love leaving these little nuggets....

TB.

<Mic drop>

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So then you agree climate change is happening

[–]useless_aether[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

i think all people agree in general, that the climate is changing, all we need to do is remember the historical records, like how tom pointed out. sahara was the breadbasket of the ancients, etc.

the way i see it is that the disagreement is about the anthropogenic global warming, that is, the push of the elites behind the united nations for carbon taxes. that is pure fantasy and not rooted in science as the many scandals proved so far. that push started out by them propagandazing 'global warming' and when that didnt stick (as the result of the scandals i mentioned) they changed it to climate change. so they are moving the goalposts, and also leave all options open for jjustifying taxes while doing so.

i think its obvious that the main driver of the climate is the sun, and its cycles, next in significance is the earths hydrosphere including the atmospheric water vapour. these account for something like 97% of the changes. the remaining 3% is a combinatin of other factors of which co2 is only one and the co2 made by nature (volcanoes alone) is again, two orders of magnitude larger than human emissions and in total maybe even three or four orders of magnitude.

the cherry on the top is the balancing reaction of the photosynthesizing flora of the planet to elevated co2 levels, they respond to it by increasing biomass, since as we all know it co2 is food for the plants. so they just gobble up the excess as it is becoming available.

the use og 'global warming' in the title is still proper, since the powers that shouldnt be want to tax carbon, that is co2 emissions, saying it is a greenhouse gas causing global warming. so the ulterior motive for taxation is still the global warming, but they dont dear using that phrase in public propaganda anymore because it backfired at them previously.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i think its obvious that the main driver of the climate is the sun, and its cycles,

That's an 11-year periodic fluctuation, so it can't be the cause of a decades-long trend.

next in significance is the earths hydrosphere including the atmospheric water vapour

Yes. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and one of the major concerns is that it'll cause a cascading effect that'll make the planet a few degrees warmer if we don't act quickly.

these account for something like 97% of the changes.

Making up numbers, I see. The real numbers, please.

the remaining 3% is a combinatin of other factors of which co2 is only one

Yes. Methane is another, and so is ozone, and so are oxides of nitrogen. I'd group water vapour under this group too, personally, but it's understandable if you've got reasons for not.

The volumes of these need to be multiplied by their "greenhouseness", though that's an incredibly simplified model and in fact the number of factors you'd need to take into consideration (which wavelengths they're opaque to, the temperatures of currents in the air, blackbody radiation, distributions in different elevations of the atmosphere, etc.) is more than a simple mathematical model would be able to accurately handle; you'd need to simulate.

and the co2 made by nature (volcanoes alone) is again, two orders of magnitude larger than human emissions and in total maybe even three or four orders of magnitude.

As I've said before, this is entirely irrelevant. I'll quote my previous comment here:

The important figures are:

  • The difference (not ratio) between the produced and absorbed quantities of greenhouse gases.
  • The proportion of the atmosphere containing the gases.

The first is, for want of a better word, the deficit. The second is, seriously for want of a better word, the debt (though the "zero" point is not "no greenhouse gases"). It doesn't matter how much we produce, how much nature produces, how much volcanoes emit… What matters is how much is being added every year, and the difference between the level that it's at and the level that it should be; we should be paying attention to the size of those numbers to determine the significance of this issue.

Think – are you wrong? There are a lot of clever people who don't stand to gain anything (except species survival) from this issue; it's possible that you might be the wrong one in this situation. Don't mindlessly believe me, but be open to considering that. It's really hard, and something that I often don't do, but at time of writing I promise I'm considering everything you're saying as if it's written by somebody I trust and respect.

the cherry on the top is the balancing reaction of the photosynthesizing flora of the planet to elevated co2 levels, they respond to it by increasing biomass, since as we all know it co2 is food for the plants. so they just gobble up the excess as it is becoming available.

Good! This argument is extremely strong! Unfortunately, we're significantly reducing the biomass of the photosynthesisers on the planet, including in the ocean (which is responsible for the majority of CO2 reduction / O2 production), via deforestation and ocean acidification. Otherwise, you'd be completely right.

Assume for a moment that my argument holds water. Blindly trust it for a few minutes. Think of what that would imply. Feel that rising sense of panic as you think through the implications. Count to 100. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 37. 38. 39. 40. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 56. 53. 54. 55. 52. 57. 58. 59. 60. 70. 80. 61. 62. 63. 74. 75. 76. 87. 88. 89. 81. 82. 83. 64. 65. 66. 77. 78. 79. 71. 72. 73. 84. 85. 86. 67. 68. 69. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. Now snap back to your previous set of beliefs. It's OK; that's not going to happen because climate change is probably a hoax… right?

the use og 'global warming' in the title is still proper, since the powers that shouldnt be want to tax carbon, that is co2 emissions, saying it is a greenhouse gas causing global warming. so the ulterior motive for taxation is still the global warming, but they dont dear using that phrase in public propaganda anymore because it backfired at them previously.

I'll ignore this argument because it's completely and utterly irrelevant. If climate change is occurring, I want to believe that climate change is occurring. If climate change is not occurring, I want to believe that climate change is not occurring.

Assuming that climate change is not occurring, you're right. But if climate change is occurring, then your strategy will kill us all.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes.

The thermodynamic system that Earth resides in, is definitely not in a perfect steady-state condition.