Global Warming

[vbnautilus 48]

in 2 weeks, mixed with 100 year record low temps of negative 20 degrees..............very much so

I think you need to think about this a little more before you come down so hard on others.

[vbnautilus 48]

But a colder than average temperature observation, while just a single observation, is nonetheless still a data point against the theory that the earth is getting hotter.

No, it isn't. In the same way that a single instance if AA losing to 72 is no indication that 72 tends to win against AA. Remember, what is predicted to increase is average global temperature. As the global temperature rises on average, some places may even get colder especially at some times of year. And, as I pointed out recently, severe winter storms were specifically predicted by the theory. The fact is that the temperature in a given location on a specific day is not predictive of the global trend. I don't want to debate the actual trend with you, I just needed to point out that dabetka's logic is fallacious.

[dabetka 0]

I think you need to think about this a little more before you come down so hard on others.

You might be right, but you still didn't touch my bigger pointAnd... who did I come down hard on? I came down hard on the topic itself.

[vbnautilus 48]

And... who did I come down hard on?

Whoever you thought was being "retarded". You only picked out Al Gore by name, he seems to get the brunt of your hatred. Which is a shame because without his internet you wouldn't even be able to make those posts.

[dabetka 0]

Whoever you thought was being "retarded". You only picked out Al Gore by name, he seems to get the brunt of your hatred. Which is a shame because without his internet you wouldn't even be able to make those posts.

this is true lol....... and I said "Ruh-tarded"

[dabetka 0]

Whoever you thought was being "retarded". You only picked out Al Gore by name, he seems to get the brunt of your hatred. Which is a shame because without his internet you wouldn't even be able to make those posts.

I just hate the fact that noone seems to care that he is going to get even more uber-rich by this fricken carbon credit scam... It's like noone even questions his motives, thats all... I do believe its "Ruh-tarded"

[SCYUKON 0]

No, it isn't. In the same way that a single instance if AA losing to 72 is no indication that 72 tends to win against AA. Remember, what is predicted to increase is average global temperature. As the global temperature rises on average, some places may even get colder especially at some times of year. And, as I pointed out recently, severe winter storms were specifically predicted by the theory. The fact is that the temperature in a given location on a specific day is not predictive of the global trend. I don't want to debate the actual trend with you, I just needed to point out that dabetka's logic is fallacious.

You said fallacious - now I want to go wake up my wife. aahh, never mind, where is the lube...I think you are mixing apples and bananas though. Totally agree that a temperature on a specific day is not predictive of the global trend. But it is also not a probabilistic event either, like the fact that 72 is a dog to AA on average. It is indicative of the actual result for a point in time. And if enough of these points are grouped to represent the global temperature, over a long enough sample of time, and they keep going cooler rather than hotter, at some point in time it can be taken as proof that the trend is cooling not warming.So this cold winter spell in Nebraska is but another brick in the determination of truth wall.

[vbnautilus 48]

I think you are mixing apples and bananas though. Totally agree that a temperature on a specific day is not predictive of the global trend. But it is also not a probabilistic event either, like the fact that 72 is a dog to AA on average.

It sure is a probabilistic event.

It is indicative of the actual result for a point in time. And if enough of these points are grouped to represent the global temperature, over a long enough sample of time, and they keep going cooler rather than hotter, at some point in time it can be taken as proof that the trend is cooling not warming.So this cold winter spell in Nebraska is but another brick in the determination of truth wall.

As each time 72 wins we add that to the total, and ultimately we find that only about 20% of them win. So that single victory is also a brick in the truth wall. But -- and this is the point I was making -- you have to look at the whole wall to get any idea of what is going on, you can't look at a single brick. An individual brick will not tell you the story. We can not say "see, its cold today, therefore GW is wrong!"

[Balloon guy 158]

It sure is a probabilistic event. As each time 72 wins we add that to the total, and ultimately we find that only about 20% of them win. So that single victory is also a brick in the truth wall. But -- and this is the point I was making -- you have to look at the whole wall to get any idea of what is going on, you can't look at a single brick. An individual brick will not tell you the story. We can not say "see, its cold today, therefore GW is wrong!"

What about: "see, it's been cold for the last 3 years, therefore GW is wrong!"?

[vbnautilus 48]

What about: "see, it's been cold for the last 3 years, therefore GW is wrong!"?

Well now we're getting somewhere. It's a question of what size sample we need to conclude its really going down. A winning poker player may have a losing month or two in a row. But when we zoom out enough we see the trend is upward. I think a 3 year downswing could be part of a hundred-year climb, but it's a legitimate question.

[akoff 0]

No, it isn't. In the same way that a single instance if AA losing to 72 is no indication that 72 tends to win against AA. Remember, what is predicted to increase is average global temperature. As the global temperature rises on average, some places may even get colder especially at some times of year. And, as I pointed out recently, severe winter storms were specifically predicted by the theory. The fact is that the temperature in a given location on a specific day is not predictive of the global trend. I don't want to debate the actual trend with you, I just needed to point out that dabetka's logic is fallacious.

This prediction is based on the frozen tree rings from 3 spots in Russia...

Whoever you thought was being "retarded". You only picked out Al Gore by name, he seems to get the brunt of your hatred. Which is a shame because without his internet you wouldn't even be able to make those posts.

so are saying al Gore is not retarded? That is gonna be a tough arguement.

Well now we're getting somewhere. It's a question of what size sample we need to conclude its really going down. A winning poker player may have a losing month or two in a row. But when we zoom out enough we see the trend is upward. I think a 3 year downswing could be part of a hundred-year climb, but it's a legitimate question.

The Hundred year climb is no more then a dot on time...

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I remember sitting in a Coffee Shop about a two years ago. The headlines were ablaze with the current rainy season in Hawaii. Apparently they were experiencing record rainfalls. Two women were cluck-clucking next to me about how horrible Global Warming was ruining the Earth and how utterly stooipd "The Republicans" are for ruining the Planet - "Anyone can see that this rain in Hawaii must ean soething." I couldn't help but laugh out loud.They looked at me like I was the stoopid one and asked me how I could refute the rain in Hawaii - EIGHT straight days of it.I explained that today's rain isn't the same thing as a trend - it doesn't prove a theory like Global Warming (the "scientists" hadn't yet started calling it "Cliate Change" to more accurately fit their bastardized version of Reality). That every stinking day there is some sort of record set somewhere and we are just getting better at noticing things happening all over the World. A hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago, we never knew nor cared about a single day record being set in Hawaii. That the thin layer of atmosphere is nothing in density compared to the rock it surrounds and that the sheer mass of the planet can absorb all of the heat we could ever pump into the atmosphere. That the sun has been blasting this planet CONSTANTLY for Billions of Years with more energy that we could ever comprehend. Blank stares: "But the rain in Hawaii..."The cold in Nebraska is EXACTLY as relevant to this discussion as the Rain in Hawaii. Or next months 60 degree weather that ruins the ski weekend in Colorado. Or the frozen oranges in Florida. Or...

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The Hundred year climb is no more then a dot on time...

What I have NEVER heard answered is a very simple question. I've repeated it here in the Past I think. Not long ago, these exact same "Scientists" claimed that the world is warmer than it has been in 400 years. If you accept that as fact (I do not, but let's play along)......Why was it this warm 400 years ago?Not the Industrial Revolution nor IC Engine.

[Balloon guy 158]

What I have NEVER heard answered is a very simple question. I've repeated it here in the Past I think. Not long ago, these exact same "Scientists" claimed that the world is warmer than it has been in 400 years. If you accept that as fact (I do not, but let's play along)Why was it this warm 400 years ago?Not the Industrial Revolution nor IC Engine.

I don't know, but I am glad that the roaming Germanic tribes were willing to slide candle wicks down gopher holes to get a proper benchmark of the earth's magma to lay down a future reference point for future generations.*Now let's not waste the valuable efforts of our forefathers labor._{*copyright Dennis Miller}

[SCYUKON 0]

I don't know, but I am glad that the roaming Germanic tribes were willing to slide candle wicks down gopher holes to get a proper benchmark of the earth's magma to lay down a future reference point for future generations.*Now let's not waste the valuable efforts of our forefathers labor._{*copyright Dennis Miller}

Too late, they "lost' the "corrected" temperature data.....

[dabetka 0]

I just found this pic and lol'd

[LincolnK 1]

there's no real point to this post, i just wanted to share. taken at 930 am. that's me in the circle.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well if there was ever a time for me to jump the right side and go left it's now.I had to have the A/C on in my car most of the day yesterday.Most of the other golfers were wearing shorts.And it looks like the next week will be more of the same.Curse you Algore and your unreasonably tepid weather here while others suffer like fools.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Well if there was ever a time for me to jump the right side and go left it's now.I had to have the A/C on in my car most of the day yesterday.Most of the other golfers were wearing shorts.And it looks like the next week will be more of the same.Curse you Algore and your unreasonably tepid weather here while others suffer like fools.

BAN

[Balloon guy 158]

BAN

My wife's sister and her kids were just here from Reston for my mother-in-laws' 80th birthday last Saturday.They greatly enjoyed the moment they stepped off the plane and had to remove at least 3 layers of clothes.Most of the kids were swimming all day and deep into the night at their condo.They were mildly depressed when I drove them to the airport.I had to turn on the AC for that drive also

[dabetka 0]

there's no real point to this post, i just wanted to share. taken at 930 am. that's me in the circle.

Pretty warm

[LincolnK 1]

No, it isn't. In the same way that a single instance if AA losing to 72 is no indication that 72 tends to win against AA. Remember, what is predicted to increase is average global temperature. As the global temperature rises on average, some places may even get colder especially at some times of year. And, as I pointed out recently, severe winter storms were specifically predicted by the theory. The fact is that the temperature in a given location on a specific day is not predictive of the global trend. I don't want to debate the actual trend with you, I just needed to point out that dabetka's logic is fallacious.

could you explain the part about places being colder as average temp rises? are you stating that average global warming is responsible for the cooling of some regions or just reminding us that average rise in temp does not preclude a localized cooling trend?also, I have not heard of winter storms being a result of global warming outside "the day after tomorrow"

[Balloon guy 158]

Pretty warm

Palm Springs Weather Forecast Fri Sat Sun Mon TueHi: 73 ° Hi: 74° Hi: 74° Hi: 75° Hi: 73°Lo: 48° Lo: 50° Lo: 49° Lo: 48° Lo: 50° Advanced Technology Engineering

[Balloon guy 158]

could you explain the part about places being colder as average temp rises? are you stating that average global warming is responsible for the cooling of some regions or just reminding us that average rise in temp does not preclude a localized cooling trend?also, I have not heard of winter storms being a result of global warming outside "the day after tomorrow"

I got this vb.You see the earth is like a giant ice cream cone.As the hot breath of Algore reaches the top, or the 'glaciers' they recede, or 'melt'. Of course this causes Polar Bears to drown, because they can only swim for like 14 days, and when they fall asleep ear the edge of the glacier, it melts so fast underneath them that they can't ever hope to catch up to the receding edge.Don't look at the bottom of the cone, don't look, look up here at Alaska.So you see these melting glaciers prove that the earth is getting warmer. Because unfortunately for us, the stupid evolutionary plan to make this planet set the temp at the North pole at exactly 31 degree Fahrenheit, or -1 Celsius.Don't look at Antarctica with it's expanding ice, keep your attention up here on Alaska.Now that the SUVs and America in general have risen the temperature of the earth so that ice melts in the entire northern hemisphere. ( remember, quit looking at the southern one which is getting larger from it's expanding ice packs )So unless we allow the democrats and tree huggers to rule our lives, we will all die from drowning. Because let's face it mister, you can't swim no 14 days!

[solderz 0]

Ask any solar astronomer and they'll tell you why its colder this year and will be next and most likely the year after. We have been at solar minimum now for 36 months. There is approximately a 30 month lag between solar activity and its weather impact. A solar minimum this long impacts weather more than greenhouse gases and has temporarily cooled the planet. It by no means challenges global warming theory.