by slipnslidemaster 108 Replies latest jw friends
Perhaps the rocket scientists at NASA can explain the difference between weather and climate for those of us (BTS JWoods) who still don't get it.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Climate = weather averaged over time. And don't forget to make it global.
Here’s a map showing the 877 snowfall records set last week.
The Gore Effect Is Everywhere!
And that’s not all, for the week ending Dec 13th, there were 815 new snowfall records set. December 2009 is shaping up to be quite the snowmaker.
Of course, the AGW alarmists dismiss such observations as “noise” in the data which does not challenge the “settled” science of catastrophic warming caused by CO2.
Really? REALLY? Is this what you REALLY believe? Is this the depths of your understanding of the science?
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WEATHER, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE
You're reasoning seems to be "how can it be getting warmer globally, we had cold weather here the other week".
One of the effects of climate change and overall global temperature rises is localized weather changes and yes, even colder weather ... like getting lots of record low temperatures for example and lots of snow.
It's really hard to argue with someone who can't reason.
Why not find something better to copy and paste if you truly cannot formulate independent thoughts!
BTS: "Here’s a map showing the 877 snowfall records set last week."
In case you weren't aware of it Burns, Climate Change predicts higher precipitation whether in the form of rain or snow. This is due to the Oceans warming up and increasing their rate of evaporation.
And here's another prediction to tickle your funny bone. Next decade (assuming sunspot activity returns to normal) is going to have hotter years than this decade.
villabolo
Climate = weather averaged over time.
Thank you. As someone without any independent thoughts, I wanted to add that December 2009 is a significant datapoint in that average. Although I lack all ability to reason, I do not doubt that had December 2009 presented itself as a record warm December, that the scintillating morons on this thread would not have hesitated to haul it out in support of their ridiculous theory. But I have been corrected. The article I linked in said that such events would be dismissed as noise by the faithful. It was correct. It is merely noise. Record heat and drought is evidence of global warming. Record cold and precipitation is also evidence of global warming. Human activity is warming the globe as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. Amen. I am grateful to Simon, patron Saint of the brain-addled nitwits for guiding us to the light.
BTS
For the spastic laboratory baboons that are habituated to press the red button for the tasty opiate laced treat and submit to the experimenters, this will present more non-evidence of a non-crisis.
No statistical warming since 1995, by physicist Lubos Motl:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-statistically-significant-warming.html
BTS
all these graphs remind of the explantion of the 607 1914 graphs ... those hold more truths than global warming graphs
B urns T he S cientist does hereby declare that CO2 is .00038% of our atmosphere!
"Keep in mind, everyone sorta has to admit that CO2 by itself doesn’t do much. Even at current concentrations, it’s a teensy weensy bit of the atmosphere (.00038%) that soaks up only a teensy weensy bit of the sun’s long-wave radiation at a particular high altitude in the tropics (the tropics account for about 80% of the Earth’s energy budget)."
Hello Cubanito, let me suggest you go back to school so that you can (re)learn that CO2 is .0387% of our atmosphere!! You were only off by two orders of magnitude (100 fold)!!! If that's how much care you dedicate to accuracy in such a basic fact I'd hate to see the other flaws in your arguments!!!!
villabolo
That is an obvious typo, since 387 PPM is .000387 the addition of the percentage character is extraneous. However, the original article seems to have been amended. And besides, a typo does not invalidate the basic argument. Sometimes you don't see the forest for the trees do you bolito? Cambia un solo caracter la naturaleza del argumento citado?
BTS
Villabolo: Shame on you - don't you know that errors are typos unless it's something by a climate change scientist in which case it is an evil conspiracy.
don't you know that errors are typos unless it's something by a climate change scientist in which case it is an evil conspiracy.
Haven't you read what has taken place in ClimateGate? It isn't merely typos. Even if it was typos, if it is data being used to support international decision making to the tune of trillions, then the standard of proof is far higher than a blog post. But as I said, ClimateGate isn't typos. It goes far beyond that. It is the deliberate manipulation of climate data. It is obfuscation. It is rigged models. It is the deletion of raw data subject to FOIA requests. It is also a clear and documented conspiracy among elite scientists to control the peer review process and suppress dissenting opinions. Have you read the evidence? It is all publicly available. Inform yourself. If you have such a strong opinion, then ignorance is no excuse. I'd love to see you present evidence for your views, rather than just attacking others for presenting theirs.
BTS
