Global Warming Standup Comedy

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2669 Feb 27, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Just a quick list of mistakes.
(1) You said Mercury was hotter than Venus -- you ran off after I proved you wrong.
(2) You said it was Venus' atmospheric pressure not its CO2 atmosphere than made Venus abnormally warm. I showed you there is stronger pressure under Earth's oceans -- no warmth. You ran off
(3) You claimed volcanic eruptions should be warming the earth. It is well documented in the science literature it has a cooling effect.
(4) You proclaimed no one took global warming seriously anymore. I showed how virtually all the reputable world renown SCIENCE organizations have strong statements supporting the threat of manmade global warming.
You pretended to see only AAAS on the list and to proclaim it a lobbying organization. You ignore for example Britain's Royal Society -- knowing you, you probably don't know who they are.
(5) I showed you where NASA's official view was pro global warming and provided a link that showed a long list of evidence and asked you to respond: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
You gave me a whacky post on Spencer saying he was from NASA. I showed the paper you gave me on Spencer had such bad errors, that the editor of his journal that published it resigned in disgrace. You ran off.
(6) You came back insisting there were OTHER NASA websites that stated global warming was not valid. I challenged you for proof using a website with an official logo from NASA.
You ran off.
(7) So you suggested NASA was a liberal ideology site.
and more recently
(8) That your god, Rush Limbaugh could do just as good a job as putting a man on the moon as NASA.
Yeah, you're really and completely deranged.
:
Wallop10,

You're absolutely right about Tina Anne. She's scientifically clueleess. However, I need to respond with a bit of a technicality.

It's true that volcanic eruptions are negative forcings that drive temperatures down. However, this is only temporary, since the ash & sulfur compounds fall out. There's a small amount of CO2 in volcanic gases, though, & over millions of years, it builds up & causes warming.

This is probably the mechanism for how we got out of snowball earth events in the past, most recently ~700 Mya.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2670 Mar 1, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Just a quick list of mistakes.
(1) You said Mercury was hotter than Venus -- you ran off after I proved you wrong.
(2) You said it was Venus' atmospheric pressure not its CO2 atmosphere than made Venus abnormally warm. I showed you there is stronger pressure under Earth's oceans -- no warmth. You ran off
(3) You claimed volcanic eruptions should be warming the earth. It is well documented in the science literature it has a cooling effect.
(4) You proclaimed no one took global warming seriously anymore. I showed how virtually all the reputable world renown SCIENCE organizations have strong statements supporting the threat of manmade global warming.
You pretended to see only AAAS on the list and to proclaim it a lobbying organization. You ignore for example Britain's Royal Society -- knowing you, you probably don't know who they are.
(5) I showed you where NASA's official view was pro global warming and provided a link that showed a long list of evidence and asked you to respond: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
You gave me a whacky post on Spencer saying he was from NASA. I showed the paper you gave me on Spencer had such bad errors, that the editor of his journal that published it resigned in disgrace. You ran off.
(6) You came back insisting there were OTHER NASA websites that stated global warming was not valid. I challenged you for proof using a website with an official logo from NASA.
You ran off.
(7) So you suggested NASA was a liberal ideology site.
and more recently
(8) That your god, Rush Limbaugh could do just as good a job as putting a man on the moon as NASA.
Yeah, you're really and completely deranged.
:
1.2. Did you or just like normal ignore anything that was an inconvient truth. I provided links to show that if anything the sunny side of Venus was the same as the sunny side of Mercury, that the reason why the dark side of venus is warmer because of atmosphere and that part of the reason was the far denser atmosphere which includes the law of thermodynamics.

4. And you included what other than your same tired old list of governement agencies that can be counted to back whatever the latest fad is. The same ones who back in the seventies were crowing that man was going to cause an ice age.

And yes, the average man on the street dosn't take global warming seriously anymore. Neither does the majority of the science community including those involve in climate research. There is even a term that describes it called Green Fatigue. People have heard all the crazy predictions and then all those updates on those predictions when it became clear it wasn't happening.

5. 6. 7. What you showed was NASA's offical stance based on Dr Hansen's offical stance. Problem is many of the people who are actually involved in the science disagree with that. And the only proof you have that I am wrong about NASA is NASA's site, not anything else. It reminds me of the kid covered in chocolate saying he don't know who ate the chocolate.

8. I would not be surprised if Linbaugh could afford to help finance such a venture. I would not say he has the expertese but he would be able to find plenty of people who do have that knowledge. People like those at Virgin Galactic or SpaceX.

I have seen that many of the people who yell at others that they are deranged are usually the ones who are in need of professional mental health care.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#2671 Mar 1, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Wallop10,
You're absolutely right about Tina Anne. She's scientifically clueleess. However, I need to respond with a bit of a technicality.
It's true that volcanic eruptions are negative forcings that drive temperatures down. However, this is only temporary, since the ash & sulfur compounds fall out. There's a small amount of CO2 in volcanic gases, though, & over millions of years, it builds up & causes warming.
This is probably the mechanism for how we got out of snowball earth events in the past, most recently ~700 Mya.
Funny considering I now have three science degrees. True they are only computer science.

And you are right about CO2 and volcanos. It is how they think Venus ended up with such a high concentration of CO2 in it's atmosphere.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2672 Mar 1, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny considering I now have three science degrees. True they are only computer science.
Yes, I find that VERY funny you consider that scientific.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are right about CO2 and volcanos. It is how they think Venus ended up with such a high concentration of CO2 in it's atmosphere.
It took millions of years.

er -- I was looking in the short term -- within the next few YEARS!-- where the aerosols effect is greater than the CO2 and there is a definite cooling period. This is well documented in the scientific literature.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2673 Mar 2, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I showed you that his data was disproven, in earlier threads -- and the editor to Remote Systems that published his paper resigned when he saw the evidence.
(1) in the late 1990s, his UAH was used as a basis for FOX saying the Earth was cooling not warming. The other satellite system RSS wrote a paper showing he had sign errors. Spencer agreed and corrected his data set and VOILA -- suddenly was showing warming about the same as RSS and the weather stations. But FOX, etc never mentioned they had been using bad data. It took him something like until 2005 to admit he had an error. Then he insisted it was no big deal.
(2) Spencer's latest paper was published by Remote sensing and showed it wasn't warming up as much in the Tropics. Except oops NASA and NCAR scientists wrote a paper proving his numbers were wrong here. They used weather balloon data to prove it, so there really was no debate. Satellites estimate heat. Balloon data actually has thermometers aboard, so they have the real temperatures.
The editor of Remote Sensing resigned even though the journal does not "routinely deal with climate change"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment ...
Spencer is a super fundi and hard right Libertarian by the way -- has written he finds Evolution evil and Creationism a better explanation.
So I would agree with you he played an initial important role in satellite development. But he's in disgrace now... at least in the scientific community.
No argument there just more scientific science fiction from NASA.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#2675 Mar 2, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>No argument there just more scientific science fiction from NASA.
which you have admitted before is an meaningless slogan...
Why put out meaningless statements?

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#2677 Mar 24, 2013
*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians.*

Science says comet hits are real but climate change only could be.
Not one single IPCC warning isn’t swimming in “maybes”.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#2678 Mar 24, 2013
Minnesota has finally emerged from subzero temps by the second day of spring.
What can a concerned person do to speed this warming process up? Clearly, CO2 is not up to the task!
Get this... Both MN and NM were in the single digits this spring.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2679 Mar 27, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
which you have admitted before is an meaningless slogan...
Why put out meaningless statements?
Maybe you got walloped again and again to understand what a meaningless slogan could be. Has it ever occurred to you in life that there is more than what you put out there? You continue to argue the opposite without showing your peer reviewed published work and count on scientific science fiction.
litesong

Everett, WA

#2680 Mar 27, 2013
fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:
wallop.......
//////////
litesong wrote:
'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' can't ask a proper scientific question because it never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Of course,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' never had any other science or mathematics training.

At least,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' tried math calculations, tho only a few attempts ended in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' has never attempted math calculations, which prove that its proficiency in math is worse than that of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver'.
litesong

Everett, WA

#2681 Mar 27, 2013
kultaid wrote:
What can a concerned person do to speed this warming process up? Both MN and NM were in the single digits this spring.
The AGW energy enhanced northern hemisphere atmosphere pushes harder into the Arctic (some of the excess Arctic warming). With enough energy, the warm fronts energetically push Arctic cold fronts south to the states & even as far as Mexico, Central America, or China & India.

Of course,'kultaid' ain't concerned.
SpaceBlues

United States

#2682 Mar 27, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The AGW energy enhanced northern hemisphere atmosphere pushes harder into the Arctic (some of the excess Arctic warming). With enough energy, the warm fronts energetically push Arctic cold fronts south to the states & even as far as Mexico, Central America, or China & India.
Of course,'kultaid' ain't concerned.
Have you seen this animation?

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03...

Usually, cold air in the stratosphere swirls around the pole, trapped in a vortex spinning about 5 miles above Earth's surface. This year, however, the red mass of warm air traveling up from Siberia burst through the blue concentric circles of the polar vortex on 7 January, pushing cold air down to lower latitudes as seen in the animation above. This rare event is called a major stratospheric warming, and it's no coincidence that severe winter weather began in the United States about 10 days later,...
litesong

Everett, WA

#2683 Mar 27, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Have you seen this animation?
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03...
Usually, cold air in the stratosphere swirls around the pole, trapped in a vortex spinning about 5 miles above Earth's surface. This year, however, the red mass of warm air traveling up from Siberia burst through the blue concentric circles of the polar vortex on 7 January, pushing cold air down to lower latitudes as seen in the animation above. This rare event is called a major stratospheric warming, and it's no coincidence that severe winter weather began in the United States about 10 days later,...
Thank you for all the great background & spectacular animation!

As I reported in "Will It, Won't It, Part 3", January 8, 2013:

Moving warm fronts causing average temperature above the 80th parallel to rise almost 14 degC above normal, have caused lots of Arctic cold air to move south onto China & Canadian north islands!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2684 Mar 28, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
...it's no coincidence that severe winter weather began in the United States about 10 days later,...
Right, before then winter weather wasn't severe...

They don't know history so they fear the weather. I feel sorry for them.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#2685 Mar 30, 2013
Why is March 2013 so cold?
Perhaps it is because CO2 is not up to the task of Warming the Globe.
Perhaps it is because other parts of the planet are, on average, far warmer.
Perhaps it is because this cold weather is simply a 'Big Oil' conspiracy to discredit Real Climate Science.
.
The FACT IS that the official temperatures for all of March have not been reported by the Experts at their offices in Seatle, Minneapolis, New Jersey, Norwich, Moscow, and Osaka.

The FACT IS that once the complete temperature readings for March have been analyzed, homogenized, smoothed and adjusted for incidental noise signatures, March 2013 may be reported as the warmest on record.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#2686 Mar 30, 2013
[QUOTE who="don't smoke kools"]Why is March 2013 so cold?[/QUOTE]

We'll see if it is. First, its been fairly warm above the 80th parallel, which indicates lots of cold Arctic air is flushed south to populated areas.
SpaceBlues

United States

#2687 Mar 30, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Why is March 2013 so cold?
Perhaps it is because CO2 is not up to the task of Warming the Globe.
Perhaps it is because other parts of the planet are, on average, far warmer.
Perhaps it is because this cold weather is simply a 'Big Oil' conspiracy to discredit Real Climate Science.
.
The FACT IS that the official temperatures for all of March have not been reported by the Experts at their offices in Seatle, Minneapolis, New Jersey, Norwich, Moscow, and Osaka.
The FACT IS that once the complete temperature readings for March have been analyzed, homogenized, smoothed and adjusted for incidental noise signatures, March 2013 may be reported as the warmest on record.
Remember what you posted today:

Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined.

Correct!
SpaceBlues

United States

#2688 Mar 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Right, before then winter weather wasn't severe...
They don't know history so they fear the weather. I feel sorry for them.
Right because:

Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#2690 Mar 30, 2013
Has anyone else read the ALARMING REPORT regarding the ROBUST EVIDENCE SUGGESTING that, in all LIKELYHOOD, March 2013's RECORD temperatures MAY INDICATE the POSSIBILITY that CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY has been heretofore UNDERESTIMATED?

Apologies forinadvertent omission of any appropriate ADJECTIVES, QUALIFIERS or
SUPERLATIVES.

-koolaid

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2691 Mar 30, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Right because: Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined.
Sure, the consequences are unimaginable because there's never been published peer reviewed experimental test of man made greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that shows even the smallest measurable change in global temperature.

Unimaginable is a good description of global warming, also incalculable, unknowable and fantastic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 17 min Another Damn Liberal 35,606
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 49 min Patriot AKA Bozo 2,068
2016 year to date (Apr '16) 3 hr Into The Night 135
News Warning against carbon tariffs (Jul '09) 12 hr Geezer files 6
News 1875: The Global Warming Solution 13 hr Earthling-1 1
Heat generated by 1 concrete 2 tarmac 3 glass 4... 14 hr Eugene 2
News Scientists Beg for Climate Action (Dec '07) Thu indict EXXON 1,863
More from around the web