Global Warming is a farce

Here CR, this chart should explain why everyone in this thread, and pretty much this entire forum, is laughing at you:



You don't know much about anything, and yet you still feel compelled to give everyone your opinion on everything, every chance you get. But I suppose that is to be expected from someone who idolizes Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.

I can see the "global" temperature had risen from 286.75 K to 287.65 K (plus or minus 0.1 K in each figure, the second decimal comes from the standard conversion between ^oC to K) in a period of 149 years. That is an average yearly increase of (21.2 +/- 4.7) ppm (parts per million).

At the same time the CO₂ concentration had risen from 285 ppm to 375 ppm (plus or minus 10 ppm on each figure). This is an average yearly increase of (0.186 +/- 0.042) %.

If anything, it tells us that temperature is rather insensitive to the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. The reason why this graph looks so dramatic is because it had been zoomed in on the vertical axis of the temperature. For example, if this rate of increase continues, the global temperature should increase by 2 C^o in a period between the next 267 and 420 years.

I posted the chart to show how climate change works, not to support global warming. CR doesn't understand how we could experience a few years of cooling, while the climate is actually increasing overall. I just couldn't find a good chart depicting climate change without showing the correlation to CO2 concentration.

I have no desire to join in a debate about global warming. I just wanted to show him why his "LOLOLOLOL its cold in florida in january!" argument was retarted.

I can see the "global" temperature had risen from 286.75 K to 287.65 K (plus or minus 0.1 K in each figure, the second decimal comes from the standard conversion between ^oC to K) in a period of 149 years. That is an average yearly increase of (21.2 +/- 4.7) ppm (parts per million).

At the same time the CO₂ concentration had risen from 285 ppm to 375 ppm (plus or minus 10 ppm on each figure). This is an average yearly increase of (0.186 +/- 0.042) %.

If anything, it tells us that temperature is rather insensitive to the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. The reason why this graph looks so dramatic is because it had been zoomed in on the vertical axis of the temperature. For example, if this rate of increase continues, the global temperature should increase by 2 C^o in a period between the next 267 and 420 years.

Also correlation does not equal causation.

But I agree with Masterchef in that the graph does show an observable rise in global temperature/ CO₂ concentration implying that FearTehGator's argument is idiotic.

You guys have been scammed. Period. Now I'm all for "green" cause it's a nice thing to do, but global warming is a scam that you have blindly fallen for.

You guys have been scammed. Period. Now I'm all for "green" cause it's a nice thing to do, but global warming is a scam that you have blindly fallen for.

No, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore are reduced to simply repeating "Its a scam!" over and over.

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:28:17 PM

You guys have been scammed. Period. Now I'm all for "green" cause it's a nice thing to do, but global warming is a scam that you have blindly fallen for.

No, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore are reduced to simply repeating "Its a scam!" over and over.

There is no other way to put it. How can you prove that the evidence you have wasn't skewed to make it seem like it's happening so theh scientists could make money? Prove this to me.

Quote from: Pete on January 12, 2010, 12:35:04 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:28:17 PM

You guys have been scammed. Period. Now I'm all for "green" cause it's a nice thing to do, but global warming is a scam that you have blindly fallen for.

No, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore are reduced to simply repeating "Its a scam!" over and over.

There is no other way to put it. How can you prove that the evidence you have wasn't skewed to make it seem like it's happening so theh scientists could make money? Prove this to me.

The burden of proof is on you to show that scientists make money by falsifying evidence.

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:37:33 PM

Quote from: Pete on January 12, 2010, 12:35:04 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:28:17 PM

You guys have been scammed. Period. Now I'm all for "green" cause it's a nice thing to do, but global warming is a scam that you have blindly fallen for.

No, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore are reduced to simply repeating "Its a scam!" over and over.

There is no other way to put it. How can you prove that the evidence you have wasn't skewed to make it seem like it's happening so theh scientists could make money? Prove this to me.

The burden of proof is on you to show that scientists make money by falsifying evidence.

Uh no, you the ones providing it as proof, so you have to prove why I should take it seriously.

Quote from: parsec on January 12, 2010, 12:39:41 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:37:33 PM

Quote from: Pete on January 12, 2010, 12:35:04 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:28:17 PM

You guys have been scammed. Period. Now I'm all for "green" cause it's a nice thing to do, but global warming is a scam that you have blindly fallen for.

No, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore are reduced to simply repeating "Its a scam!" over and over.

There is no other way to put it. How can you prove that the evidence you have wasn't skewed to make it seem like it's happening so theh scientists could make money? Prove this to me.

The burden of proof is on you to show that scientists make money by falsifying evidence.

Uh no, you the ones providing it as proof, so you have to prove why I should take it seriously.

Why shouldn't you take it seriously?

I saw the title of this thread, and then saw the author. I thought to myself, 'There's no way he's literally actually seriously going to claim that global warming isn't happening because it's cold,' but well done CR90, you've excelled yourself.


Also, it's really cold in Britain at the moment, which, in fact, is strong evidence for global warming.

Quote from: parsec on January 12, 2010, 12:39:41 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:37:33 PM

Quote from: Pete on January 12, 2010, 12:35:04 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:28:17 PM

You guys have been scammed. Period. Now I'm all for "green" cause it's a nice thing to do, but global warming is a scam that you have blindly fallen for.

No, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore are reduced to simply repeating "Its a scam!" over and over.

There is no other way to put it. How can you prove that the evidence you have wasn't skewed to make it seem like it's happening so theh scientists could make money? Prove this to me.

The burden of proof is on you to show that scientists make money by falsifying evidence.

Uh no, you the ones providing it as proof, so you have to prove why I should take it seriously.

Why should we care about your opinion?
Also, you've already proven multiple times that you're practically bulletproof to logic. I have no interest in smashing my head against a brick wall.

I saw the title of this thread, and then saw the author. I thought to myself, 'There's no way he's literally actually seriously going to claim that global warming isn't happening because it's cold,' but well done CR90, you've excelled yourself.


Also, it's really cold in Britain at the moment, which, in fact, is strong evidence for global warming.

WTH?!

------



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/22330

What are you trying to counter?

Quote from: Eddy Baby on January 12, 2010, 12:44:08 PM

I saw the title of this thread, and then saw the author. I thought to myself, 'There's no way he's literally actually seriously going to claim that global warming isn't happening because it's cold,' but well done CR90, you've excelled yourself.


Also, it's really cold in Britain at the moment, which, in fact, is strong evidence for global warming.

WTH?!

------



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/22330

As a counterargument, I present the following proof:

Britian would normally be warmed by ocean currents.

Since it's cold, it indicates the ocean currents are not functioning as they should, and a likely cause is that global warming is changing the temperatures and salinity of the water to the point where the currents no longer function normally.

Britian would normally be warmed by ocean currents.

Since it's cold, it indicates the ocean currents are not functioning as they should, and a likely cause is that global warming is changing the temperatures and salinity of the water to the point where the currents no longer function normally.

Why wouldn't global cooling do the same?

Quote from: jtelroy on January 12, 2010, 01:00:17 PM

Britian would normally be warmed by ocean currents.

Since it's cold, it indicates the ocean currents are not functioning as they should, and a likely cause is that global warming is changing the temperatures and salinity of the water to the point where the currents no longer function normally.

Why wouldn't global cooling do the same?

Because we're suddenly getting a stream of arctic water, instead of our lovely, warm, tropical water. Global cooling would affect it, perhaps, but negligibly.

Quote from: parsec on January 12, 2010, 01:01:38 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on January 12, 2010, 01:00:17 PM

Britian would normally be warmed by ocean currents.

Since it's cold, it indicates the ocean currents are not functioning as they should, and a likely cause is that global warming is changing the temperatures and salinity of the water to the point where the currents no longer function normally.

Why wouldn't global cooling do the same?

Because we're suddenly getting a stream of arctic water, instead of our lovely, warm, tropical water. Global cooling would affect it, perhaps, but negligibly.

Where does the lovely, warm, tropical water go?

It's pushed towards the bottom of the ocean by the less salty arctic water that's melted from the icecaps.

Quote from: jtelroy on January 12, 2010, 01:00:17 PM

Britian would normally be warmed by ocean currents.

Since it's cold, it indicates the ocean currents are not functioning as they should, and a likely cause is that global warming is changing the temperatures and salinity of the water to the point where the currents no longer function normally.

Why wouldn't global cooling do the same?

It would affect temperature, but not salinity.

Salinity is affected by themelting of various ice shelfs, which would cause the water to be less saline.
 

Quote from: Pete on January 12, 2010, 12:35:04 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:28:17 PM

You guys have been scammed. Period. Now I'm all for "green" cause it's a nice thing to do, but global warming is a scam that you have blindly fallen for.

No, it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore are reduced to simply repeating "Its a scam!" over and over.

There is no other way to put it. How can you prove that the evidence you have wasn't skewed to make it seem like it's happening so theh scientists could make money? Prove this to me.

I don't have to, silly. You are the making the one making the positive claim that they are some evil global conspiracy.

It's pushed towards the bottom of the ocean by the less salty arctic water that's melted from the icecaps.

This is correct.

It's pushed towards the bottom of the ocean by the less salty arctic water that's melted from the icecaps.

This will only be possible if the temperature interval is between 0 ^oC and 4 ^oC.

Eh? Explain.

Quote from: parsec on January 12, 2010, 01:01:38 PM

Quote from: jtelroy on January 12, 2010, 01:00:17 PM

Britian would normally be warmed by ocean currents.

Since it's cold, it indicates the ocean currents are not functioning as they should, and a likely cause is that global warming is changing the temperatures and salinity of the water to the point where the currents no longer function normally.

Why wouldn't global cooling do the same?

It would affect temperature, but not salinity.

Salinity is affected by themelting of various ice shelfs, which would cause the water to be less saline.
 

And why would a less saline water be the preferred explanation over a more saline one?

Quote from: Eddy Baby on January 12, 2010, 12:44:08 PM

I saw the title of this thread, and then saw the author. I thought to myself, 'There's no way he's literally actually seriously going to claim that global warming isn't happening because it's cold,' but well done CR90, you've excelled yourself.


Also, it's really cold in Britain at the moment, which, in fact, is strong evidence for global warming.

WTH?!

------



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/22330

If you seriously think that Youtube videos are worth crap in a scientific discussion, I'll be praying for you.

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:50:12 PM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on January 12, 2010, 12:44:08 PM

I saw the title of this thread, and then saw the author. I thought to myself, 'There's no way he's literally actually seriously going to claim that global warming isn't happening because it's cold,' but well done CR90, you've excelled yourself.


Also, it's really cold in Britain at the moment, which, in fact, is strong evidence for global warming.

WTH?!

------



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/22330

If you seriously think that Youtube videos are worth crap in a scientific discussion, I'll be praying for you.

Are you that high and mighty to watch a documentary from british teleivison that someone posted on Youtube?

Quote from: Pete on January 12, 2010, 01:13:21 PM

Quote from: FearTehGators on January 12, 2010, 12:50:12 PM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on January 12, 2010, 12:44:08 PM

I saw the title of this thread, and then saw the author. I thought to myself, 'There's no way he's literally actually seriously going to claim that global warming isn't happening because it's cold,' but well done CR90, you've excelled yourself.


Also, it's really cold in Britain at the moment, which, in fact, is strong evidence for global warming.

WTH?!

------



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/22330

If you seriously think that Youtube videos are worth crap in a scientific discussion, I'll be praying for you.

Are you that high and mighty to watch a documentary from british teleivison that someone posted on Youtube?

I could find you 9 times as much evidence to counter yours, I'm afraid.

Regarding the youtube videos, see my counterexample.