It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming Deniers Become More Desperate By the Day

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


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. Today, children always hear stories from their parents and grandparents about how snow was always piled up to their waists as they trudged off to school. Children today in most areas of the country haven't experienced those kinds of dreadful snow-packed winters, except for the Northeastern U.S. in January 2005. The change in recent winter snows indicate that the climate has changed since their parents were young.
Src

It's one of those scientific definition things.




posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Greven

You know, it's funny, but it's always just weather ... until it's suddenly climate. At what point do we cross the magic weather/climate divide? I[/yvid]


It starts when you get to timescales significantly longer than one over the primary Lyapunov exponent governing the rate of divergence of trajectories from chaotic dynamics. Therei is no set 'divide' but there is an effect.

Look, ergodic theory and chaos & mixing has been studied for quite some time---the people who do this for a living understand the problem.

Of course there are multiple time scales, the timescales of ocean 'weather' (months/years/decades) is a climatic perturbation of the flucutating atmospheric dynamics which is the weather timescale.

Once again, science and the complexity of nature is not constrained into sneeringly sophistic boxes such as "the magic weather/climate divide?"



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: guohua

All about surface temperature. Add in ocean temperature.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd
OK. So Global Warming is dangerous and random weather catastrophes are imminent. Governments are doing too little and most are doing nothing. Therefore, it is a runaway train. If that is so, I have not noticed any survivalist movement emerging from the Global Warming believers. If they really believed it, they would have split the program, began moving en mass from coastal areas like the South East US to higher ground in colonies. They would have bought guns, food, medical supplies, etc. Emergency organizations would have made plans for Global Warming disasters. Because none of this criteria has been met, I can't believe in Global Warming because proponents haven't done anything but make a lot of noise. I wouldn't do anything because they haven't. Without personal action for survival by believers, I can't believe. Without their personal action to survive, that demonstrates that there is no such phenomenon nor threat, but just an intellectual fad.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
global change is existant but is not related to humans but to sun/space problems.
only destruction of nature (posoning, brown fields, mass death of animals etc) caused by humans and industry (industrial revolution)



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

You know, it's funny, but it's always just weather ... until it's suddenly climate. At what point do we cross the magic weather/climate divide? I[/yvid]


It starts when you get to timescales significantly longer than one over the primary Lyapunov exponent governing the rate of divergence of trajectories from chaotic dynamics. Therei is no set 'divide' but there is an effect.

Look, ergodic theory and chaos & mixing has been studied for quite some time---the people who do this for a living understand the problem.

Of course there are multiple time scales, the timescales of ocean 'weather' (months/years/decades) is a climatic perturbation of the flucutating atmospheric dynamics which is the weather timescale.

Once again, science and the complexity of nature is not constrained into sneeringly sophistic boxes such as "the magic weather/climate divide?"

I'm not certain of your point here. Is is basically "it's more complex then weather vs. climate? However, I can't decern your point due to all the Jargon you've used without explaination. Your post is condesenceing and helps no one's understanding.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: naftaland
a reply to: FyreByrd
OK. So Global Warming is dangerous and random weather catastrophes are imminent. Governments are doing too little and most are doing nothing. Therefore, it is a runaway train. If that is so, I have not noticed any survivalist movement emerging from the Global Warming believers. If they really believed it, they would have split the program, began moving en mass from coastal areas like the South East US to higher ground in colonies. They would have bought guns, food, medical supplies, etc. Emergency organizations would have made plans for Global Warming disasters. Because none of this criteria has been met, I can't believe in Global Warming because proponents haven't done anything but make a lot of noise. I wouldn't do anything because they haven't. Without personal action for survival by believers, I can't believe. Without their personal action to survive, that demonstrates that there is no such phenomenon nor threat, but just an intellectual fad.


That's because 'survivalists' is a fantasy. The effects of global warming will be profound on politics and economics and can't be ameliorated by holing up in some mountain. It will affect everybody. Buying guns and food and medical supplies today is irrelevant vs the prosperity and success of 7 billion people in the future.

I'd like to have a Canadian passport.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
I'm not certain of your point here. Is is basically "it's more complex then weather vs. climate? However, I can't decern your point due to all the Jargon you've used without explaination. Your post is condesenceing and helps no one's understanding.


My post isn't condescending. The point is that I have a minor amount of scientific training relevant to this particular issue, and that is in fact miniscule compared to the depth of knowledge that people who do this professionally do. Laymen do not appreciate how ignorant they are and I see all sorts of completely wrong BS being pushed on this one issue.

[This is true about every field of science & engineering, but only on climate do typical smart, but untrained people, read and spread intentionally deceptive BS which seems superficially clever but is deeply mistaken and motivated by political and economic desires, not science]

I know just enough to know how much I don't know myself and how much more informed the actual scientists are on this matter and why I should follow what they say.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

You are still too clever by half. Most of the folks who DO NOT WISH TO BE INCONVENIENCED (to whom the rest of this missive is devoted) are in the camp that thinks that the free market will resolve this.

It will not.

When the methane deposits locked up in the tundra lets loose, we will be in the runaway portion of the climate temperature curve. Some of the folks in the know are not planning on a lengthy retirement. The sea level rise is happening. It's measurable. It's consistent and accelerating.

I live in the Tampa Bay area. When I drive along the roads and see the enormous land fills that will be underwater in relatively short order and witness the further deposits, I question the sanity of us all. (I must be nuts otherwise why would I be driving?) All of those disease ridden piles of potential long-lived pollution need to be moved or???

Superfund monies? Further regulations? Plagues? Killing the oceans? Ultimate death for us and anything bigger than a methane eating microbe?

We are still allowing the insuring of beach front that will be unusable in a few decades. How's that for a plan of resolving for what WE KNOW IS COMING.

If I told you that in the late fifties and early sixties this information was already available would you start moving to an intelligent discourse instead of fabricating factoids to fit your feelings? If we can ameliorate the rapidity of a change (which I do not believe is avertable and no evidence supports otherwise) we can only profit.

If yo have a political agenda, try to remember that it is an artificial construct. It is not binding on the Universe to fit that set of standards you adhere to. If direct evidence exists to the contrary, let it go. Try to fit the grater reality, the non-human one, into the context of your existence. Try on a new worry hat. Money has no impact on what is being spoken of.

It is survival.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: FyreByrd
I'm not certain of your point here. Is is basically "it's more complex then weather vs. climate? However, I can't decern your point due to all the Jargon you've used without explaination. Your post is condesenceing and helps no one's understanding.


My post isn't condescending. The point is that I have a minor amount of scientific training relevant to this particular issue, and that is in fact miniscule compared to the depth of knowledge that people who do this professionally do. Laymen do not appreciate how ignorant they are and I see all sorts of completely wrong BS being pushed on this one issue.


No, it is condescenting, as is this one.

It is condescending to speak in a language THAT YOU KNOW laypeople in a lay forum, will not understand in order to appear knowledgeable and superior. It is condescending not to explain those terms in simplier langauge and if you cannot then you should not use them in a lay forum at all.

Then you go on to tell everyone just how ignorant they are? That is condencing.

This is self-centered promotion with no intent to inform or educate. It is self-aggrandizement.

for your education, a simple definition:




condescend |ˌkändəˈsend|
verb [ intrans. ]
show feelings of superiority; patronize : take care not to condescend to your reader.
• do something in a haughty way, as though it is below one's dignity or level of importance : we'll be waiting for twenty minutes before she condescends to appear.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Really it changes 4 times a year we gotta stop beating the
MANS WARMING THE PLANET Routine lol
Global warming. ..oppps I mean climate change



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

ENOUGH!!!!



This thread isn't about bickering or barbs aimed at other members.
Please post on topic.......You are responsible for your own posts.

Community Announcement re: Decorum



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
humans can't possibly change the climate of earth because they are so miniscule that they and their artifacts cannot be seen from space.

however they are causing climate poisoning, by radioactive, poisonous smoke from industrial revolutions world wide , china cant stop the madness even they are being buried by sand and dust while they are doing it. they are happy to be industrial nation, the idiots destroying their homeland forever.
stupid mao tsi tong



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Semicollegiate
Also, I think the last IPCC estimate was 4 °C by 2100, not 10 °C by 2010.


IPCC estimates (AKA: Projections) are laughable--if you still use them for any measure of actual future events, you're doing yourself a huge intellectual disservice. And if they happen to end up being correct, it'll be pure happenstance, as their methods of data collection (and manipulation) sabotage any true scientific finding* that they actually could obtain.

* To me, "scientific finding" means something that uses all accurate data in raw form to create an end result. The IPCC does not do that.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: naftaland
a reply to: FyreByrd

OK. So Global Warming is dangerous and random weather catastrophes are imminent. Governments are doing too little and most are doing nothing. Therefore, it is a runaway train. If that is so, I have not noticed any survivalist movement emerging from the Global Warming believers. If they really believed it, they would have split the program, began moving en mass from coastal areas like the South East US to higher ground in colonies. They would have bought guns, food, medical supplies, etc. Emergency organizations would have made plans for Global Warming disasters. Because none of this criteria has been met, I can't believe in Global Warming because proponents haven't done anything but make a lot of noise. I wouldn't do anything because they haven't. Without personal action for survival by believers, I can't believe. Without their personal action to survive, that demonstrates that there is no such phenomenon nor threat, but just an intellectual fad.



You're assuming that they don't believe that only governments can help them out...why take the responsibility to prepare when the government can fix the "problem?"

See, that's the main issue I have with all of these AGW mouth fountains (especially the likes of gov't officials and the Branch Algoreans)--none of them actually live a life that stifles the effects against which they are preaching. Hell, Al Gore's home near Nashville uses 10 times the electricity of the average US home...all while he's flying his private jets to and fro to promote his alarmism and make millions and millions in the process. And he's not the only one.

So, if this ranted garbage about the immense damage we're doing to the world was actually done by people who live the life they instruct us to do, I MIGHT take them seriously (if I could turn a blind eye to the growing body of peer-reviewed work that negates their AGW gospels). But they don't, so I take the sum of the whole to form a conclusion that the alarmism is just a bunch of crap.

Speaking of crap, there's probably a lot more in the Arctic circle since polar bear populations are supposedly at record levels and climbing. Just saying...



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
IPCC estimates (AKA: Projections) are laughable--if you still use them for any measure of actual future events, you're doing yourself a huge intellectual disservice.

The poster I was replying to wildly exaggerated claims by the IPCC to suit his own ends.

That is a fact. He claimed that the IPCC said 10 degrees Celsius rise in temperature in only a few short years, which simply wasn't a claim by the IPCC.

Why you attack my post in such a manner befuddles me.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Lyapunov exponent:



In mathematics the Lyapunov exponent or Lyapunov characteristic exponent of a dynamical system is a quantity that characterizes the rate of separation of infinitesimally close trajectories. Quantitatively, two trajectories in phase space with initial separation \delta \mathbf[Z]_0 diverge (provided that the divergence can be treated within the linearized approximation) at a rate given by
| \delta\mathbf[Z](t) | \approx e^[\lambda t] | \delta \mathbf[Z]_0 | \,
where \lambda is the Lyapunov exponent.
The rate of separation can be different for different orientations of initial separation vector. Thus, there is a spectrum of Lyapunov exponents— equal in number to the dimensionality of the phase space. It is common to refer to the largest one as the Maximal Lyapunov exponent (MLE), because it determines a notion of predictability for a dynamical system. A positive MLE is usually taken as an indication that the system is chaotic (provided some other conditions are met, e.g., phase space compactness). Note that an arbitrary initial separation vector will typically contain some component in the direction associated with the MLE, and because of the exponential growth rate, the effect of the other exponents will be obliterated over time.


In summary: because weather is chaotic there is known mixing of trajectories (this is mixing in the phase space of the dynamical system, the internal coordinates of the degrees of freedom which for atmospheric weather is the primarily patterns of pressure, wind, humidity & temperature as function of altitude). These specific weather patterns change with time and are sufficiently unpredictable because of chaos (positive Lyapunov exponents) and this puts a practical time limit on the amount of weather forecastability given standard measurement accuracy.

Ability to predict weather means being able to predict specific values of pressure,wind,humdity, temperature etc at a given location in space and time.

Climate prediction does not attempt to do that, its goal is predicting statistical distributions, including means, medians, and extremes of those patterns. It may use langauge of probability even if underlying physics is chaotic (not quite the same as stochastic), but when dealing with timescales much longer than the weather mixing timescale (which is weeks) it's a normal assumption.

So predicting the climate is a different task than predicting the weather even if one relates to the other, and the inability to forecast weather (using the standards weather forecasters care about) 40 days forward because of known chaotic phenomena doesn't say anything about ability to forecast climate (using the standards climate forecasters care about).



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

So, if this ranted garbage about the immense damage we're doing to the world was actually done by people who live the life they instruct us to do, I MIGHT take them seriously (if I could turn a blind eye to the growing body of peer-reviewed work that negates their AGW gospels)


There isn't.


. But they don't, so I take the sum of the whole to form a conclusion that the alarmism is just a bunch of crap.


That is profoundly illogical. (And it also shows the conservative fixation on people and people's groups as threats, instead of abstract facts)

Plenty of doctors used to smoke even though they knew it was unhealthy, and their actions were IRRELEVANT as to the scientific question. What matters are the actual scientific results and analysis.

I also read about all sorts of complaints about """smug""" Prius-driving tree-huggers.

If they hole up in a zero-carbon mountain cabin with no power eating bugs, they're mocked as being irrelevant and ridiculous. Would you change your mind if primary author of a _Nature_ article did so? No I didn't think so, because Al Gore.

What if they tried to influence planning commissions and development? Oh hell no.

And then when you get actual scientists trying to influence policies which might make a significant enough global change to actually quantitatively influence things [i.e. put their actions where the science says], they're accused of doing so for supposed socialist one-world-government motives and attacked and mocked once again.

It's very clear that some people just don't want to deal with the scientific fact, because those facts and moral responsibility inevitably lead to political and economic solutions which are personally distasteful, and instead of saying the truth, "I'm a selfish bastard who doesn't give a crap about the rest of the planet and the future, I've got mine", they find increasingly impossible slivers of truthiness to cling to their moral superiority.

Besides, they're getting what they want. Emissions are on the 'worse than worst case scenario', but we WILL get the climate that the laws of physics have coming for us.

I'm a """believer""" the way a doctor is a believer in cancer. It's really awful, but it is scientific truth. I have no desire for greenhouse emission taxes, but we sure need them.

In 150 years, unrestrained burning of coal will be regarded by the survivors as morally repellent as slavery, and just as now people will be horrified by how something so evil was considered a normal and strenuously justified part of the economic system.



edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I am still trying to figure out why people are out selling it to the public, because the average public citizen will not do a thing about it, and this includes everyone. The only thing that is seen are a few people taunting the people who don't believe it, and vice versa.

Until countries find other energies and stop burning coal, and the ocean floor stops puking out methane, nothing is going to slow down, or prevent anything. The earth might even need to put a stop to those darned volcanoes too. (And don't forget forest fires all over the globe.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The only thing being sold to the public is the oil that we burn which is driving the CO2 levels up in our atmosphere. The science behind this 'theory' proves this.

Right now we are around 400ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, before the industrial revolution we were holding steady at around 280ppm for thousands of years. This is large rise is short amount of time. Ignoring this fact is ignoring the reality of our existence on this planet.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join