Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

G

god1

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html#.VFMN5Fbob-Y
Click to expand...

Answer this, is climate a casual function or not? Can it be used to predict instantaneous weather?
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
My point being ... When you control the weather you control the climate. Which is exactly what is happening. Nice deflection though.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I'M still waiting for the end of the world.

I mean seriously, will global warming kill us all? I want to see the evidence that says a couple degrees warmer = end of all life on earth.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
god1 said:
Answer this, is climate a casual function or not? Can it be used to predict instantaneous weather?
Click to expand...
Your incorrect spelling and the way you phrased the question threw me off.
If you are asking me if climate is a causal system or that there is causality between man caused co2 and temperature, my answer is, no.

I believe there is a causality between co2 and temperature but it's looking like co2 lags temperature.
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
I'M still waiting for the end of the world.

I mean seriously, will global warming kill us all? I want to see the evidence that says a couple degrees warmer = end of all life on earth.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of dry land. If the oceans rose 10 feet we'd all still be fine. People would simply have to move inland a little. New ports would be opened, new lakes and rivers would be formed. New growing land would be developed. It gets up to 110+ where I live in the summer. I'm fine. I think this is all a bunch of nonsense. It's a debate over who is right and wrong. Nobody really cares about the climate.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
sheskunk said:
There is a lot of dry land. If the oceans rose 10 feet we'd all still be fine. People would simply have to move inland a little. New ports would be opened, new lakes and rivers would be formed. New growing land would be developed. It gets up to 110+ where I live in the summer. I'm fine. I think this is all a bunch of nonsense. It's a debate over who is right and wrong. Nobody really cares about the climate.
Click to expand...
I fully agree.
My main argument is that there is proof that our climate has changed throughout history, way before man set foot on this planet. The idea that the government can change this by legislation is downright idiocy.
 
G

god1

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Your incorrect spelling and the way you phrased the question threw me off.
If you are asking me if climate is a causal system or that there is causality between man caused co2 and temperature, my answer is, no.

I believe there is a causality between co2 and temperature but it's looking like co2 lags temperature.
Click to expand...
Yeah, in general I’m a terrible speller and the problem is exacerbated when I don’t proof read.

Causal in the mathematical sense; I’m curious about your definition re the difference in the two discussed terms; hence the questions. Some of your comments just struck me as odd; specifically in your use of “time”. Are you talking about the sampled time interval or the record length?

Btw, you don’t have to give your answer in terms of climate change; that’s not what I’m asking about.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
If you are asking me if climate is a causal system or that there is causality between man caused co2 and temperature, my answer is, no.
Click to expand...
NASA would disagree, but that's probably all part of the george soros conspiracy and they don't know as much as a smart guy like you.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
NASA would disagree, but that's probably all part of the george soros conspiracy and they don't know as much as a smart guy like you.
Click to expand...
neh, maybe it's the fact I don't trust the government and politicians like some of you loons do.
Even NASA itself admits 95% of their climate models were wrong, you can hang your hat on the 5%, I won't.

Here is the head of NASA in 1988 predicting a 1.9 degree celsius rise in temperature, needless to say, he was way off.

 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
NASA itself admits 95% of their climate models were wrong
Click to expand...
care to put down the meth pipe for a second and cite that claim for me, beenthere?

jahbrudda said:
Here is the head of NASA in 1988 predicting a 1.9 degree celsius rise in temperature, needless to say, he was way off.

Click to expand...
care to tell me which denier website you got your falsified graph from?

because here is hansen's 1988 predictions.



and here is hanen's 1981 prediction:



for the record, beenthere, hansen never predicted a 1.9 degree celsius increase. as you can see, that projection is based on levels of CO2 that are higher than the levels of CO2 that have actually been created.

scenario B most closely matches the levels of CO2 that have been created, and the 25 year old projection has been about as accurate as you could get.

but feel free to tell some more lies while providing no citation for your own ridiculous claims and obviously falsified, unattributed graphs, washere.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
care to put down the meth pipe for a second and cite that claim for me, beenthere?



care to tell me which denier website you got your falsified graph from?

because here is hansen's 1988 predictions.



and here is hanen's 1981 prediction:



for the record, beenthere, hansen never predicted a 1.9 degree celsius increase. as you can see, that projection is based on levels of CO2 that are higher than the levels of CO2 that have actually been created.

scenario B most closely matches the levels of CO2 that have been created, and the 25 year old projection has been about as accurate as you could get.

but feel free to tell some more lies while providing no citation for your own ridiculous claims and obviously falsified, unattributed graphs, washere.
Click to expand...
You supply a graph with the wrong prediction from the alarmist website skeptical science LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top