Did anyone survive that killer global warming storm back east? Sounded like it was going to be pretty gruesome!
Blizzard
- Thread starter millerbleach
- Start date
A
ag-man
Guest
Miller,
I agree with a lot you say, because you are correct on a lot of things. Conservatives bring a lot to the table, as do liberals. We need to accept that both sides have the best intentions , even though we disagree about how to accomplish said goals.
That being said, I understand extremes in temperature do indeed indicate climate change, and I do believe humans and their activities do have an effect on the atmosphere. We had one of the worst winters where I live last year and people joked about "global warming", but in fact , extremes, whether hot or cold, do indeed prove that Mother Earth is having a hard time dealing with her parasites .
I agree with a lot you say, because you are correct on a lot of things. Conservatives bring a lot to the table, as do liberals. We need to accept that both sides have the best intentions , even though we disagree about how to accomplish said goals.
That being said, I understand extremes in temperature do indeed indicate climate change, and I do believe humans and their activities do have an effect on the atmosphere. We had one of the worst winters where I live last year and people joked about "global warming", but in fact , extremes, whether hot or cold, do indeed prove that Mother Earth is having a hard time dealing with her parasites .
Agman, one thing you never want to say in a public forum is that you agree with a lot of what Miller says. Dudes a tard.
Hmmm I was just looking at Snowiest Months, Snowiest Snowfalls and Seasons. It's pretty inconsistent over the last 100+ years. If you look at the top 20 snowiest seasons, you'll notice a few years from each decade(just about). The 1970's were pretty snowy seasons.
Maybe the STL isn't a good measuring stick for climate change/global warming/seasonal change/planet earth/we will insert whatever else into this equation/normalness.
NOAA
Another excellent post by the OP. Two points:
1) There's not much that's dumber than someone confusing weather with climate.
2) Something that actually is dumber than point 1 is someone pointing to a sign of climate change and saying it's not a sign. True genius.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
1) There's not much that's dumber than someone confusing weather with climate.
2) Something that actually is dumber than point 1 is someone pointing to a sign of climate change and saying it's not a sign. True genius.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This is a complicated topic. What you did is exactly right and in line with the expectations for STL. It gets into the idea that climate change is not just "warmer".
In places like STL, climate change means less overall snow, because it means more of the winter precipitation is falling as rain. The % of time that the temperature in STL is below freezing has declined over time. There's just less chance for snow overall.
It does mean that the overall amount of precipitation which falls in the winter is likely to be higher in STL - it's just that more of it will fall as rain.
In places like NYC and Boston, climate change means increased potential for larger individual storms (which is what I was really referring to). Why? Because their big storms are fueled by the water in the Atlantic. Higher sea surface temperatures in the Ocean means more water evaporates up to the cloubs. That means bigger clouds coming to shore dumping bigger storms. It's a recipe for more snow.
If NYC and Boston were becoming colder, they would see more snow storms, but likely fewer big storms.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
If you believe the govt numbers the earth has warmed 1.53 degrees F from 1880 to 2012.
Thats over 132 years, and with them crunching the number to make it look as bad as possible.
People that think this tiny change has had some drastic effect on our weather have not a lick of common sense at all.
It was warmer 150,000 years ago than it is now. (Right befroe the start of the last Ice Age)
The last "Ice Age" ended about 12,000 years ago. What did man do to make the large rise in global temperatures happen that made the ice sheets retreat from northern Missouri all the way back to Alaska?? Fred Flinstone must have been smokin his feet pushing that car around !!!
Thats over 132 years, and with them crunching the number to make it look as bad as possible.
People that think this tiny change has had some drastic effect on our weather have not a lick of common sense at all.
It was warmer 150,000 years ago than it is now. (Right befroe the start of the last Ice Age)
The last "Ice Age" ended about 12,000 years ago. What did man do to make the large rise in global temperatures happen that made the ice sheets retreat from northern Missouri all the way back to Alaska?? Fred Flinstone must have been smokin his feet pushing that car around !!!
After reading this retarded post I now understand why most republicans just use the "I'm not a scientist" response..
Stevetard has to be Miller's other name. Do you have some proof on this number crunching deception?
Stevetard has to be Miller's other name. Do you have some proof on this number crunching deception?
Whether it's cooling, warming or changing, neither is man caused and there is no proof otherwise.
Science and facts are all I care about. Scientists and facticians are who I don't trust. There is a lot of science and facts in your posts.....not.
Just pointing out that your buddies were all over the news saying that this storm (weather) was a result of global warming (climate) and that it would be like nothing ever seen before.
They were wrong on both accounts.
Have you checked with Buck on this? I hear he's a real knowledgeable guy!
You guys have been preaching this "proven, factual" notion for 40 years that I can remember (who knows before that). We've always been told it was imminent or, by the turn of the century or, 10 years tops, etc. and life hasn't been disrupted even a smidge. Keep on fretting but it's bad for your health to worry.
Tsunamis on one side of the globe and on the other, 100 year floods twice in a decade in some locations don't count as a smidge? You are dumb.
I think I became dumber just from reading this.
Your entire post is it pretends that (a) the change is a part of some natural historical cycle, (b) it pretends the whole world is magically affected in the same way by a change in climate, and (c) we're done warming.
All of these basic assumptions are factually wrong.
I'm not a scientist really is a laughable answer. Ok, you're not a scientist. When you acknowledge you're not an expert, what you're really saying is I need to rely on someone else's expertise to make a decision. If this is your answer, then why aren't you out there fighting for what the actual experts are telling you?
I mean, when they are asked about the budget, do they say "I'm not an economist"? When asked about national defense, do they say "I'm not in the CIA?"
I think it's a good thing this is the answer, though, because it's not a viable long-term strategic position, and there's only one logic move out of it, which is acknowledging the science.
I think that when a Republican says "I'm not a scientist" it usually means they acknowledge and agree with the scientific consensus. They just don't feel like they can admit that to the brain-dead part of the primary base or to a segment of their donors who feel strongly about this. Or they are a Senate Majority leader who is running in a coal state.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
Read SPM D1 it basically says "gee we don't know why our models are wrong so often"
Absolutely none of the climate change garbage is fact and they admit it in their report
Absolutely none of the climate change garbage is fact and they admit it in their report
I don't think you can read if that's what you took from the report.
The reports on climate change all draw the same factual conclusions:
- Historically, the change in the avg temp of the earth is heavily tied to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
- We can prove why this matters (we can prove how greenhouse gases trap in heat, we're not just measuring correlation and implying causation).
- The earth has warmed at an unprecedented rate over the past 150 years.
- There is no natural factor that can explain this (volcanoes, solar, whatever else you can think of). The models adjust for these changes.
- The carbon content of our atmosphere has changed in a manner driven by human action in a way that didn't exist before 1800 or so. We can measure this from ice cores and other preserved material
- This recent change in carbon is the direct cause of the change in temperature which cannot be explained by other natural factors.
The historical models fit this well.
There are a range of projections about the future, but they all reach the same general conclusion - the earth will continue to warm unless we reduce the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere.
This is not rocket science - it's like saying a fat person won't stop getting fatter until they stop eating so much.
S
Stevedangos
Guest
From United Nations Report on Climate Change document for Policy Makers released Sept 2014
The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}
• The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing
THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING there was no warming of the earth from 1998 to 2012, but there probably is a reason why global warming casued this period not to be as warm as they predicted 20 years ago when they started crying wolf
The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}
• The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing
THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING there was no warming of the earth from 1998 to 2012, but there probably is a reason why global warming casued this period not to be as warm as they predicted 20 years ago when they started crying wolf
I think that it is obvious that man and his actions have an affect on the earth. You put a drop of oil in a bucket of water it's no big deal. You put a drop in every day and eventually you have a problem. There are too many people in this world. We need more wars to control the population. Problem solved.
Obviously Miller missed the part of the NE where the storm DID hit. It didn't hit NY City because it shifted slightly from the track they thought it would take but it hammered Boston and other places. 3ft of snow and 75 mph winds is a pretty nasty winter storm and they're due to get a couple more smaller snows in the next day or two. It's not at all unusual for a storm to shift one way or the other, it has happened right here in PB several times this winter. We have had very little snow or ice because the temp stayed just above freezing all night or the track of the storm changed by 25 to 50 miles.
This post was edited on 1/29 12:36 PM by 3Rfan
This post was edited on 1/29 12:36 PM by 3Rfan
This post was edited on 1/29 12:36 PM by 3Rfan
This post was edited on 1/29 12:36 PM by 3Rfan
No. They are not basically saying that. They are saying the surface didn't warm. The oceans continued to warm. Considering the oceans store the significant majority of the warming, there is no claim to be made that we didn't warm from 1998-2012.
They are also saying that, absent a change in natural factors which occurred, the surface temperatures on the earth would still have warmed due to human causes. They are saying that the warming from human causes did not occur at as high a rate as occurred prior to 1998. They aren't saying we stopped causing warming.
What they are really saying is our understanding of the rate of change caused by certain human pollutants needs some calibration. They are not saying "oops the warming was actually natural." They are saying we know X% of the historical warming is from humans, but we're still in the process of calibrating how much was gas A, how much is gas B, etc. Problems with those estimates are throwing off models about the future.
Also, guess what has changed since 2012? We're back to setting records for the hottest year ever! 2014 did it! Get out those party hats we did it again! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/
I thought this post had something to do with a Dairy Queen Blizzard. At least then it would have been something millerbleach has a basis of knowledge about.
Let's all keep in mind that miller defended Todd Akin and tried to argue that women can in fact avoid pregnancy via rape because their body "shuts down".
Anyone taking miller seriously about...well anything, but especially a scientific discussion has already lost. The dude has no idea what he's talking about and is too stupid to realize he's an idiot.
Want to make this board a better place? Don't respond to his idiocy, you can't reason with him because facts don't matter to him. The sooner you all realize this, the happier you all will be.
This post was edited on 1/29 5:08 PM by Buck Commander
Let's all keep in mind that miller defended Todd Akin and tried to argue that women can in fact avoid pregnancy via rape because their body "shuts down".
Anyone taking miller seriously about...well anything, but especially a scientific discussion has already lost. The dude has no idea what he's talking about and is too stupid to realize he's an idiot.
Want to make this board a better place? Don't respond to his idiocy, you can't reason with him because facts don't matter to him. The sooner you all realize this, the happier you all will be.
This post was edited on 1/29 5:08 PM by Buck Commander
Yeah, you've got it all pegged. Tsunamis!!!!! Do you really think they are caused by temperature fluctuations!!!!
100 year floods occur on an AVERAGE of 100 years and most actually occur more frequently.
Yeah genius.
I never had any use for Akin, didn't defend him and didn't vote for him. Your facts are insanely inaccurate but at least NM thinks you are smart.
Nope, i'm well aware that there was a heavy snowstorm in the northeast and am not in the least concerned. Are you actually saying the predictions of a never before seen storm caused by global warming actually happened?
I don't have to hit ignore to ignore him. Notice I haven't responded to any of his ridiculous attacks. A year ago I would have gone on and on trying to show him how moronic he actually is. A year later, he's still a moron.
I've made peace with the fact that I could have a more productive conversation with a piece of fruit, so I don't bother speaking to him. At least not directly, and as rarely as possible.
Nope. I posted that the predicted global warming disaster hadn't happened and you resonded with evidence claiming it did.
Similar threads
