Yes, because conservatives have no clue how the atmosphere works so they can't convert the idea of "heat" into "change," so once again we have to hold their hands and walk them through the mental process.
I thought it was global warming, now is it called climate change??
Once data started showing that we were in a cooling trend the label global warming no longer worked so it was changed. Now, rich people can talk the faithful into adopting global taxes that benefit rich people regardless of what is happening with the climate.I thought it was global warming, now is it called climate change??
So for all you deniers herp a derping about how climate changed in the past, which it did by the way, how did the previous climate change effect Florida beach front communities, Houston suburbs, mega farms in Kansas?
You know the infrastructure that 300 million Americans and 7 Billion humans rely on. You know the business hundreds of thousand of republican jerb creators built and insured.
Don't worry I'm sure since the climate changed in the past nothing will happen this time. I'm mean none of our farms, cities, or homes were harmed when it happend 100,000 years ago, right?
Nobody cares.
Don't put your family's history of mental illness (which apparently did not skip a generation) on the rest of the world. Instead, seek professional help for your paranoia and stop boring us with your nonsense delusions.
..says the allegedly adult individual who fantasizes about cartoon ponies that talk.
Yes, because conservatives have no clue how the atmosphere works so they can't convert the idea of "heat" into "change," so once again we have to hold their hands and walk them through the mental process.
Ooooh, time for this one again. I never get tired of it.
Wrong. Note how I said that it's "meaningless in the context of AGW?" That's because storms like this were possible and expected DECADES before any calculate impact our emissions could have contributed to. Your scenario is stupid. If the coin always had both sides and had beaten the odds before AGW's influence, then what did AGW do? Add a second "TAILS" side and STILL end up beating the odds?! "Overdue" is important because it specifically states that the odds were in favor for a storm like this happening earlier in the past which is entirely relevant to what we can attribute this to. It would have to happen MORE than the odds dictate to be attributable to AGW. Get it? Stop playing games when it's not about that and you know it.No he doesn't. We were over-due for a storm like that and it's meaningless in the context of AGW. I think it's funny to see people support silly statements like this just because the person stating them has the same political leanings as themselves.
The very fact you use phrasing like what I've bolded above shows true ignorance of statistics. If you flip a fair coin 5 times and it comes up tails every time, you're not "overdue" for a head - the odds of a tail are still 1 in 2. Similarly, if a storm like Sandy occurs - on average - every 50 years and no storm like Sandy has occurred for the past 50 years, the odds of a storm like Sandy occurring THIS year are pretty much the same as if a storm like Sandy occurred two years ago (I say "pretty much" only because the existence of such a storm two years earlier my indicate a change in global weather patterns that might influence the odds of another Sandy).
So does water vapor. If I put a blind over my window made of a few materials and it blocked 90% of the spectrum, it doesn't matter if the blind made of a different material that blocks 70% of the same spectrum is added. You can add as many as you want and it will have ZERO effect if it doesn't block any of the spectrum not covered by the first blind. This is the situation with CO2 vs the natural Greenhouse Gasses. The wavelengths CO2 captures are already absorbed with plenty of excess absorption capacity from existing Greenhouse Gasses and natural CO2 levels.Dude which part don't you believe. Be specific:
1. We have satellites that can measure the output of the sun
2. We have satellites that can measure the albedo of the Earth
3. These two measurements show a 1 W/m^2 imbalance between input to the earth and the output.
4. We can show in the laboratory that CO2 traps heat.
Patently false. You do realize that we were hunting wooly mammoths in Siberia before they were frozen, don't you?5. From statements from petrochemical companies about how much they've sold in oil, gas, and coal we know how much has been burned. So we know how much has been released into the atmosphere.
6. We can confirm that number by directly measuring the CO2 in the atmosphere.
7. The last time the climate warmed this much it more naturally there were no human civilizations to suffer from it.
The key parts. See above.So which part don't you believe?
To shoot me down. I'm waiting for someone who can put their method of forming beliefs up against mine and show theirs superior. But the jokers here can't even begin to express their methods. With no examination and no discrimination against bias, they take the first thing their brains shit out as holy writ, and expect the consistency with conservatard memes for which it was filtered on creation to somehow be a confirming check for both their belief and the Truth of Conservatardism.
That doesn't even come close to cutting it.
Wait, who thinks that climate change is not real??? Our climate has been in a state of change since day one. It is believed that the earth has endured at least 5 ice ages in it short history.
To shoot me down. I'm waiting for someone who can put their method of forming beliefs up against mine and show theirs superior. But the jokers here can't even begin to express their methods. With no examination and no discrimination against bias, they take the first thing their brains shit out as holy writ, and expect the consistency with conservatard memes for which it was filtered on creation to somehow be a confirming check for both their belief and the Truth of Conservatardism.
That doesn't even come close to cutting it.
So does water vapor. If I put a blind over my window made of a few materials and it blocked 90% of the spectrum, it doesn't matter if the blind made of a different material that blocks 70% of the same spectrum is added. You can add as many as you want and it will have ZERO effect if it doesn't block any of the spectrum not covered by the first blind. This is the situation with CO2 vs the natural Greenhouse Gasses. The wavelengths CO2 captures are already absorbed with plenty of excess absorption capacity from existing Greenhouse Gasses and natural CO2 levels.
Patently false. You do realize that we were hunting wooly mammoths in Siberia before they were frozen, don't you?
The key parts. See above.
No matter what, the human heart seems to want to embrace destruction, be it in the world around them, or the world inside them.
Dude which part don't you believe. Be specific:
So which part don't you believe?
... says the person fantasizing about a person across 2D symbolic representation.
lose because of the weather. Their anti government stance screwed them with Katrina and Isaac screwed their convention, then along comes Sandy, the deadly lady that reversed Romney's momentum and tipped the race to Obama. It's not nice to stick your head in the sand and let the Mother Nature blow your ass away. Time to take climate change seriously, no?
Do you ever make sense to anyone but yourself?
Because there was such a chance that Romney was going to take NJ, NY or any of the New England states??
Who doesn't? Idiots. If you are coming at it from the position that anyone who disagrees with the effect of CO2 on the real-world Greenhouse Effect of our atmosphere is likely one of them, you may be revealing your bigotry.Well you didn't argue with the satellite measurements so I'll assume you agree with the fact the Earth is warming.
From your statement, you don't understand how analogies work. If it were exactly the same, I wouldn't need something else to explain it. If you must interpret it as "blocking," then consider that it does such by reflecting it back into the system OUTSIDE the window. Also, understand that you can "block" light energy by absorbing it and changing it into heat. Hmm... what does that sound like to you? :hmm:From your statement you don't understand how green house gases work. They don't block sunlight. They absorb and radiate it back to the ground. If they blocked it like blinds they would be cooling the Earth.
Of course not, but the point is that the previously existing levels of water vapor and other Greenhouse Gasses are more than enough capacity to absorb and retain ALL of the spectrum of energy from The Sun that the additional CO2 can. Because the CO2 cannot contribute to the effect (can't absorb/retain more if it's all already absorbed/retained), the additional heat can only come from The Sun. No one is denying that The Earth is warming. They are saying that additional CO2 from artificial emissions is capable of influencing it. Get that straight.Very good water vapor is a green house gas! You may not realize this but there is a water cycle which means the relative amount of green house causing water vapor stays the same in the air as water evaporates and precipitates. Except when the air warms above normal, allowing more vapor into the air increasing heat retention. Of course scientists have looked into how CO2, water vapor and methane play into warming the planet. You didn't think you were the only one to think of that?
So, it's not our effect on the planet that matters, it's our modern comforts? He didn't say "modern." He said "human civilization." Also, it has warmed this much in "human civilization." Look up the Medieval Warm Period.I also see you missed the point on human civilization. It's not that we haven't lived through climate change its that our modern civilization has not lived through it.
OF COURSE we need to know what effect the warming is going to have and plan around it whether the warming is natural or not. Don't pretend that AGW skeptics have a "do nothing" attitude toward anything other than CO2 emissions.Moonie is right you, CZroe, are going to pay for it. You might herp a Derp about Al Gore and carbon credits but you are going to pay for it. Your home owners insurance is going to increase. Your flood and windstorm insurance is going to increase. Your food prices are going to go up as farms have to move due to wetter or drier conditions and require higher prices and govt subsidies.
See above. If NATURAL Global Warming has such an effect, so be it. We need to identify it as natural or man-caused so that we can focus on what's important: prevention or accomodation/adaption. That way we will not have squandered all our resources avoiding the unavoidable with none left for the very real/potential impacts you're talking about.Don't worry I'm sure buying produce from a warmed Siberia will be cheaper than from Florida right?
Who doesn't? Idiots. If you are coming at it from the position that anyone who disagrees with the effect of CO2 on the real-world Greenhouse Effect of our atmosphere is likely one of them, you may be revealing your bigotry.
From your statement, you don't understand how analogies work. If it were exactly the same, I wouldn't need something else to explain it. If you must interpret it as "blocking," then consider that it does such by reflecting it back into the system OUTSIDE the window. Also, understand that you can "block" light energy by absorbing it and changing it into heat. Hmm... what does that sound like to you? :hmm:
Of course not, but the point is that the previously existing levels of water vapor and other Greenhouse Gasses are more than enough capacity to absorb and retain ALL of the spectrum of energy from The Sun that the additional CO2 can. Because the CO2 cannot contribute to the effect (can't absorb/retain more if it's all already absorbed/retained), the additional heat can only come from The Sun. No one is denying that The Earth is warming. They are saying that additional CO2 from artificial emissions is capable of influencing it. Get that straight.
This part here is absolutely wrong. The atmosphere cannot capture all incoming or outgoing thermal energy. If it did the temperature of the Earth would be about equal to the sun by now. What measurements do show is the Earth retaining an extra 1W/m^2. Incoming energy will equal outgoing energy once the planet warms enough. Lookup Steffan-Boltzmann law of radiation.
So, it's not our effect on the planet that matters, it's our modern comforts? He didn't say "modern." He said "human civilization." Also, it has warmed this much in "human civilization." Look up the Medieval Warm Period.
OF COURSE we need to know what effect the warming is going to have and plan around it whether the warming is natural or not. Don't pretend that AGW skeptics have a "do nothing" attitude toward anything other than CO2 emissions.
This is yet another example of you not only forgetting that we all agree that the climate changes and is warming, but you seem to be saying that we need to do this for our own sake instead of the environment's. Are you saying that even if it is natural we should screw nature, take control, and FORCE it to change in our favor? We are going to "pay" either way.
See above. If NATURAL Global Warming has such an effect, so be it. We need to identify it as natural or man-caused so that we can focus on what's important: prevention or accomodation/adaption. That way we will not have squandered all our resources avoiding the unavoidable with none left for the very real/potential impacts you're talking about.
But the fact that 97% of scientist who study the climate agree with man-made global warming says you are full of shit.