EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1117
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Roswell
United States250 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.[5] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/12/global-warming-fake-pause-hiatus-climate-change http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif | ||
|
Roswell
United States250 Posts
| ||
|
Roswell
United States250 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 17 2014 03:57 Roswell wrote: Almost 2 decades isnt enough time or what am I missing? IIRC part of the pause in warming is due to a single year of abnormally warm temperature. How much weight you want to put on that one year is up to you. In any case we're cooler than models assumed. I wish both sides would stick to logical debate. Invoking God is out of place and I'm tired of every damn weather event prompting global warming tie-ins. Edit: PS go Amaz!!! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On June 17 2014 04:04 Roswell wrote: "Guys wind doesnt count, obv earth didnt pause last 15 years cause like when we subtracted winds from the models-" no you dont just subtract something from your models and the facts. The fact is there is wind. U cant just fucking take that out of the equation. And The Guardian is a rubbish site. ...what...? Did you even bother to comprehend the article before trying to summarize and dismiss it? It really doesn't look like you did? | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 17 2014 03:26 Roswell wrote: Its called a different opinion. Something that is looked down upon these days. How cute! Tactic #2 When you realize that your faulty ethos argument is insubstantial and you're getting called on it, throw up your hands to the world and tell the world that it's not wrong to have a different opinion. Then proceed to exclaim about how you're being persecuted simply for your beliefs! A commendable pathos argument, my friend. It really tears at the heart strings. Unfortunately pity is not a very valuable currency in the realm of debate, and you haven't even earned any of it yet. Nobody's questioning your right to have opinion. We're also not questioning the fact that your opinion can be wrong, and that in light of the majority of evidence pointing towards you being wrong and the majority of authoritative figures arguing the same, you are probably just wrong. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 17 2014 04:04 Roswell wrote: "Guys wind doesnt count, obv earth didnt pause last 15 years cause like when we subtracted winds from the models-" no you dont just subtract something from your models and the facts. The fact is there is wind. U cant just fucking take that out of the equation. And The Guardian is a rubbish site. no one "took the wind out". I'm not sure you're understanding the article. Improving your models if there is a disparity between what you predict and what you observe is an essential part of the scientific method. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/how-the-climate-will-change--the-role-of-latent-heat-of-fusion-in-global-warming.html Essentially, polar ice (and other ice forming in the winter) acts as a dampener on the warming of the planet. CO2 acts as a driver to the warming. The forces oppose one another, while weather and winds play a large role in regional temperatures. If it's true that global temperatures have stagnated (which is a claim I find highly dubious), it is because we are trading our planet's ice for cooler global temperatures. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 17 2014 04:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: IIRC part of the pause in warming is due to a single year of abnormally warm temperature. How much weight you want to put on that one year is up to you. In any case we're cooler than models assumed. I wish both sides would stick to logical debate. Invoking God is out of place and I'm tired of every damn weather event prompting global warming tie-ins. Edit: PS go Amaz!!! That definitely angers me as well. There are very real signs of global warming, and we should definitely focus on those (polar ice caps melting, a general increase of temperature across the globe compared to 40-50 years ago, rising sea levels, etc.). However, blaming every tornado/hurricane/flood/drought on climate change is likely folly. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 17 2014 04:18 aksfjh wrote: That definitely angers me as well. There are very real signs of global warming, and we should definitely focus on those (polar ice caps melting, a general increase of temperature across the globe compared to 40-50 years ago, rising sea levels, etc.). However, blaming every tornado/hurricane/flood/drought on climate change is likely folly. Well I guess it's a necessary evil to get the message across. If you say "well yeah the data kind of leaves no doubt and 97% of established scientists agree on the issue" no one's going to care. Before Fukushima many Japanese did not have an issue with nuclear energy at all, although some experts had already warned about potential hazards. As soon as the catastrophe happens everyone is like "why didn't we do anything?!" | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 17 2014 03:50 Roswell wrote: The fact that the earth hasnt warmed in 15 years. I should make an inconvenient truth sequel. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/why-the-globe-hasnt-warmed-much-for-the-past-decade-15788 | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 17 2014 04:21 Nyxisto wrote: Well I guess it's a necessary evil to get the message across. If you say "well yeah the data kind of leaves no doubt and 97% of established scientists agree on the issue" no one's going to care. I guess it's probably just a failing of the media in general. They want a sting, something to point a finger at to say, "SEE?!?!?!" The message can be given in entirely proven ways as well, like was done in this XKCD: ![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cold.png) Trends like that corroborate global warming, metadata and whatnot, much better than some storm in April. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 17 2014 04:28 aksfjh wrote: I guess it's probably just a failing of the media in general. They want a sting, something to point a finger at to say, "SEE?!?!?!" The message can be given in entirely proven ways as well, like was done in this XKCD: + Show Spoiler + Trends like that corroborate global warming, metadata and whatnot, much better than some storm in April. The problem is that people who are so caught up in their irrational belief system won't listen to reasonable media. I'm pretty sure your average climate denier is not familiar with xkcd (Also Randall is publishing a great "what if" book, buy it :D) The whole "I'm entitled to my opinion" culture that seems to be cultivated in the US reinforces theses "opinions" On June 17 2014 04:04 Roswell wrote: And The Guardian is a rubbish site. *cough* | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 17 2014 03:44 farvacola wrote: David Brooks is the only conservative pundit I consider worth reading, and it goes without saying that he's considered by many to be as RINO-y as they come. oh man. david brooks is so full of himself. he's terrible | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a rare blow to the gun lobby Monday by ruling that purchasers must report when they are buying firearms for other people. The 5-4 decision upheld two lower courts that had ruled against so-called straw purchasers Source Boom. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On June 17 2014 04:52 oneofthem wrote: oh man. david brooks is so full of himself. he's terrible Find me a pundit who isn't full of themselves and I'll have a nice bridge ready to sell. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 17 2014 05:32 farvacola wrote: Find me a pundit who isn't full of themselves and I'll have a nice bridge ready to sell. I don't think there are any conservatives who like David Brooks, so I'm not sure why you'd label him a "conservative pundit." | ||
|
Roswell
United States250 Posts
On June 17 2014 04:12 Jormundr wrote: How cute! Tactic #2 When you realize that your faulty ethos argument is insubstantial and you're getting called on it, throw up your hands to the world and tell the world that it's not wrong to have a different opinion. Then proceed to exclaim about how you're being persecuted simply for your beliefs! A commendable pathos argument, my friend. It really tears at the heart strings. Unfortunately pity is not a very valuable currency in the realm of debate, and you haven't even earned any of it yet. Nobody's questioning your right to have opinion. We're also not questioning the fact that your opinion can be wrong, and that in light of the majority of evidence pointing towards you being wrong and the majority of authoritative figures arguing the same, you are probably just wrong. Now just hold on a second. The earths global temperature over the last 15+ years has stabilized. So we have one fucking study from one guy who says it is "probably" being rerouted into the ocean. And that isnt even the only idea thrown around, low solar levels etc. These are fucking theories. Not facts. Yet The Guardian uses it as an excuse to say "aha!" | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 17 2014 05:34 xDaunt wrote: I don't think there are any conservatives who like David Brooks, so I'm not sure why you'd label him a "conservative pundit." I think you meant to type... I don't think there are any Republicans who like David Brooks, so I'm not sure why you'd label him a "conservative pundit." | ||
| ||
