Global Warming Thread IX

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:19 pm

Bro. David: // And you say that your A/C bill for August is $75 to $125 buck$? \/

That is not what I said -- not even close. What I said is that my AVERAGE A/C bill is $300+ in hot Julys and hot Augusts.

Fortunately, the August heat wave (warmer than AVERAGE) has broken for a few days.

Bro David: // So you're concluding that global warming is "real" based on an anomaly in Moscow, Russia ... \\

Wrong, Assumption Breath :-) That is one more nail in the coffin called "Climategate". There are thousands of proofs of Global Warming, more than can be posted on one topic.

// Ed, do you have conclusive proof that hell's fires are "real" \\

Yes, but I cannot show you without killing you, which would be harmful to both of us :-(
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:24 pm

Bro David: // ... the temperature in exciting Norman, Oklahoma has been pretty much average from the June of 1880 through the June 2009? \\

Tee Hee! you are such a card, Elder Brother David -- Love you Bro.!

anyway, you have lived in Oklahoma long enough to know that Oklahoma does not have a Climate, it has Weather. However, one can take the numerical average of the weathers (say the tems at 11:00PM local time, for 15 Aug) over a period of years, and divide. It just so happens that central Oklahoma has kept records only since 1880. The 11:00PM local time for 15 Aug 11:00PM was only available half an hour ago, it was 82ºF. That is the AVERAGE, not the NORMAL. Oklahoma does not have a Climate (NORMAL), it has Weather -- and one can compute a meaningless average to use for comparisons.
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:16 am

KeithE wrote:1aDavid, are you going to admit that article you linked approvingly was full of misrepresentations like:

(1) Gore said 18-20 feet not 20 meters
(2) Gore (and his "band of merry alarmist climate scientists") did not claim this would happen by 2100 and in fact they never gave a date for when Greenland (or Antartica) Ice Sheets would completely dissolve.
(I clearly quoted for you what was said in An Inconvenient Truth - see above)
(3) That James Hansen has been crisscrossing the globe claiming sea levels would rise to 20 meters by 2100.

1a) Full of misrepresentations? Hardly.

(1) Yes, I'll admit that the article quoted meters rather than feet. But whether Gore stated it in meters or feet, both figures are preposterous. Not even the IPCC predicted a 20 feet rise in sea-levels.

(2) Believe it or not, Gore predicted that the arctic could be ice free in 5 years. Yes, that was 5 years. If he's correct about that, the ice sheet in Greenland, which is mostly within the arctic circle would also melt. But we know that Greenland ice sheet didn't even the Medieval Warming Period which was warmer than it is now. Strangely, contrary to your alarming news about this year being the hottest year on record to date, Steve Goddard said yesterday (8/15/10) that this has been the coldest summer on record north of 80N, and temperatures have dropped below freezing ahead of the average date. (Source) Something's cockeyed somewhere. How can it be the coldest on record in the arctic and hottest on record elsewhere simultaneously? Methinks the warmists have it all wrong...

(3) Hansen has predicted a sea-level rise of 5 meters (16 feet) by the end of the century, which is very close to what Gore predicted. Other than Gore and Hansen, Richard Alley, is the only scientist/professor who says seas could rse that much. Alley says there's a possibility that sea-levels could rise 23ft. Hansen may not have predicted 20 meters, but his prediction is preposterous considering that at no time in the history have sea-levels risen that much that fast.

KeithE wrote:Or your own whopper:
neither Gore nor his band or merry alarmist climate scientists have ever been correct on anything

Actually it's isn't a whopper at all. You can google hundreds of articles that show the large number of errors in AIT (An Inconvenient Truth). Try googling Al Gore, errors. I know your negative feelings about Christopher Monckton, but be that is it may, he presents a definitive article of 35 errors in the movie which is based on the book. [35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore's Movie] Call it false if you will, but I challenge you refute any one of Monckton's points. Gore's conclusion is basically that global warming is caused by man (i.e. AGW). No one has ever proven that global warming, such as it is, has been caused by man. Here's something to consider with respect to Gore. After all these years of his preaching & propagandizing, he has yet to face a single person on the globe to defend his theory. Not once has he ever sat and debated a climate scientist, meteorologist, or GW skeptic to defend himself or his theory. You would think if he' so confident about his theory, he would at least man-up and and face someone in a debate on the subject.

KeithE wrote:You have been caught and you should admit it; but why should I expect that since you have never admitted to error on tens (maybe hundreds) of links that I have often taken the time to show their falsity with DATA or quotes.

You're not arguing with me wrt global warming. You're arguing with the GW skeptic scientists that I've been quoting. The falsity with DATA resides in the AGW camp. Time and again, the theories of Gore, Hansen, Mann, Phil Jones, and other prominent warmists have been proven false. No need to re-enter the sources here inasmuch as I've done it on numerous occasions in the past...

KeithE wrote:1Or are you (when cornered) going to continue to change the subject to such uninformative claims that 'its summer so the temp is always high'? Btw it is winter in the south hemisphere but nontheless June / July/ August has always been higher temp months when globally averaged. 2Such appeals may appeal to the public and those eager to absolved themselves of future responsbilities, 3but it is badly mistaken to say this is just another typical summer year. 4Actually laughable. 5You would know this if you ever plotted the DATA at Spencer's AMSU DATA site (as I have repeatedly asked but you totally ignore!) that proves that this year (includng this summer) has been hotter globally than ever before (~0.3C average exceedance dtae by date since Jan 2010, unheard of increases). Note that for the most important layer ("near surface air", channel 04), this year is again over 0.4C warmer on 8/13 than any year since the AMSU data has started in 1979 - see plot below or plot it yourself at AMSU satellite DATA to enlarge it (I cannot figure out how to do that!). 6It is true that July 2010 started to get down closer to those hottest years since 1979 (as Spencer trumpeted back in early July as indication that the second half of 2010 would be cooler) but it has gone up beginning on 8/3 to as high as an exceedance as ever (0.75F=0.42C) by 8/13.
Image

1) I'm not cornered in this debate. Never have been cornered. As a skeptic, I don't have to defend anything. You're the one who's defending the false claims of anthropogenic global warming. You're the one who's defending the likes of Gore, Hansen, Mann, Jones, et.al. You're the one who's defending the trumped up theory of man-made global warming (now called man-made climate change). As to your claim that I change the subject, that's false. Go back through and review these threads and you'll see that I unfailingly document my arguments. You can call my documentation false if you wish, but you can't charge me with changing the subject. Regarding this post, I'm correct. There is nothing unusual about warm temperatures in summer.

2) Who is eager to absolve themselves of future responsibilities? What are those responsibilities? There's not a blessed thing that you, I, or anyone can do to alter climate trends. It's nonsense to believe that man can do anything to control weather patterns. To this point in global history, man has never managed to control either climate or weather. He's not going to begin doing so anytime soon.

3) I'm not afraid to declare that this is just another typical summer. In a few days (August 21st to be exact) we will reach the exact middle of the summer season. August is always the hottest part of the summer season in the northern hemisphere. Sure, from time to time somewhere around the globe there will be some record high temperatures. But it's no cause for alarm. No reason to get all hot and bothered about it...

4) To me, it's laughable to become excessively alarmed about something (summer weather) over which man cannot control.

5) It's a mystery to me how you can twist Spencer's data to support your view of man made global warming knowing that's he's a GW skeptic. He believes that global warming is natural, not man-made. A month ago (7/17/10) he wrote a 19-point article entitled, My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies. In point #2, he says one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. Just about everything in the article refutes the AGW theory.

6) So is a 0.75F=0.42C rise supposed to represent a catastrophic increase in temperature? Hardly...

KeithE wrote:David, I counter as many of your many denialist links (and your own overstated sarcasm) as I have time to do on an vitally important matter. 1However, you seldom show me you have even delved into what I argue and link. 2Just change to subject to the latest denialist deception.

1) Evidently you aren't reading much what I post because most of what I write is countering one or another of the alarmist claims you've offered in the debate. I'll admit that that I haven't responded immediately some of your latest posts. I'm currently working on a couple of responses to previous posts you've submitted in the last week or so. I'll try to do a better job of staying current. I plan to post a couple of those responses in the next couple of days. (ie this one and this one)

2) No, Keith, I don't change the subject.

KeithE wrote:In short, you don't debate fair.

I can apreciate how you might feel that I don't debate fair when you're losing... :wink:
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:27 am

Ed Edwards wrote:Bro David: // ... the temperature in exciting Norman, Oklahoma has been pretty much average from the June of 1880 through the June 2009? \\

Tee Hee! you are such a card, Elder Brother David -- Love you Bro.!

anyway, you have lived in Oklahoma long enough to know that Oklahoma does not have a Climate, it has Weather. However, one can take the numerical average of the weathers (say the tems at 11:00PM local time, for 15 Aug) over a period of years, and divide. It just so happens that central Oklahoma has kept records only since 1880. The 11:00PM local time for 15 Aug 11:00PM was only available half an hour ago, it was 82ºF. That is the AVERAGE, not the NORMAL. Oklahoma does not have a Climate (NORMAL), it has Weather -- and one can compute a meaningless average to use for comparisons.

Tell me, Ed, how does Oklahoma escape having a climate? What does Texas have? Do they have weather or climate? What about Alabama where Keith lives? Weather or climate?
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Previous

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron