Global "Warming"

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/world/asia/antarctic-iceberg/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

A massive iceberg with an area almost twice the size of Atlanta is moving into the ocean off Antarctica and could threaten shipping during the Antarctic winter, scientists say.

And don't expect it to melt. An iceberg of that size could hang around for a year or more, Robert Marsh, a scientist at the University of Southampton in England, said last year.

Ppppffffttt,... if the globe is WARMING, then wouldn't this ice that broke off (probably due to global warming) melt in less than a year?!

Also, have these people NOT paid ANY attention to the snowy winter, we JUST had?!
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,922
1,572
126
funny....I thought it was being called Climate Change now so they can cover their bases if it gets too hot or too cold...
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,548
30,768
146
"Hey, scientists! If we came from monkeys, how come they's still monkeys? My grandpa won't no monkey! Haha, you lose, science!"

In case you guys don't get it:

"Hey, scientists! What do you mean 'GLOBAL Warming,' huh? It was freezing in Michigan last month! Haha, you lose, science!"
 
Last edited:

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
funny....I thought it was being called Climate Change now so they can cover their bases if it gets too hot or too cold...

Well climate change is used because too many people are stupid. There are those who are fucktarded who think that because it's colder where they are at this moment that the planet is not warming. A vast majority of global warming is actually absorbed by the oceans which changes currents which changes climate globally (also kills a whole lot of ocean life). So while Australia had its hottest year on record last year, North America suffered from the polar vortex due to changes in the jet stream.
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
funny....I thought it was being called Climate Change now so they can cover their bases if it gets too hot or too cold...

Yeah! Why can't these idiots follow Pro-Lifers, as an example!? Who defend & fight for unborn babies AND inmates on death row?!
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Good thing once we prohibit the internal combustion engine and give all our money to 3rd world nations to not cut down the rain forest, we'll prevent global warming and ensure that 10cm of sea rise doesn't kill us all.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Well climate change is used because too many people are stupid. There are those who are fucktarded who think that because it's colder where they are at this moment that the planet is not warming. A vast majority of global warming is actually absorbed by the oceans which changes currents which changes climate globally (also kills a whole lot of ocean life). So while Australia had its hottest year on record last year, North America suffered from the polar vortex due to changes in the jet stream.
What does the polar vortex over North America last Winter have to do with "climate change"?
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,582
163
106
What does the polar vortex over North America last Winter have to do with "climate change"?
Quite obvious if you know what to look for, I don't see why the continent of (North) America is so averse to this notion that's very evident & quite clear to the rest of us :\
Well climate change is used because too many people are stupid. There are those who are fucktarded who think that because it's colder where they are at this moment that the planet is not warming. A vast majority of global warming is actually absorbed by the oceans which changes currents which changes climate globally (also kills a whole lot of ocean life). So while Australia had its hottest year on record last year, North America suffered from the polar vortex due to changes in the jet stream.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
So you've got nothing expect speculation. Got it.

It's a bit more than speculation. It's a studied phenomenon that while not proven, the evidence heavily points towards.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014036/article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051000/abstract

Global warming and climate change are not mythological. They're proven science. The causes and effects of are being studied with a vast majority of those studies point towards humanity as a contributing factor.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
It's a bit more than speculation. It's a studied phenomenon that while not proven, the evidence heavily points towards.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014036/article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051000/abstract

Global warming and climate change are not mythological. They're proven science. The causes and effects of are being studied with a vast majority of those studies point towards humanity as a contributing factor.

Again, when do we get beyond the "it's settled science" and on to banning cars? I'm looking forward to bringing back horses for transport and filling up the streets of cities with even more shit than normal.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
It's a bit more than speculation. It's a studied phenomenon that while not proven, the evidence heavily points towards.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014036/article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051000/abstract

Global warming and climate change are not mythological. They're proven science. The causes and effects of are being studied with a vast majority of those studies point towards humanity as a contributing factor.
Once again...you have nothing...hypothesis = speculation.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,922
1,572
126
It's a bit more than speculation. It's a studied phenomenon that while not proven, the evidence heavily points towards.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014036/article
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051000/abstract

Global warming and climate change are not mythological. They're proven science. The causes and effects of are being studied with a vast majority of those studies point towards humanity as a contributing factor.

Let us know when China and India buy into your little plan....this is a global issue, right???
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
Once again...you have nothing...hypothesis = speculation.
I certainly have more than you. At least in the knowledge and intelligence department. You've shown an unwillingness to learn, so I'll just stop trying.
Let us know when China and India buy into your little plan....this is a global issue, right???

Yes it is a global issue but the argument you're making is that because OJ got away with murder you should be allowed to also. We also shouldn't model our worker's rights practices after China or India.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I certainly have more than you. At least in the knowledge and intelligence department. You've shown an unwillingness to learn, so I'll just stop trying.
I may not be nearly as knowledgeable or intelligent as you, but it seems to me that you might want to make an effort to learn the difference between fact and hypothesis.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
I may not be nearly as knowledgeable or intelligent as you, but it seems to me that you might want to make an effort to learn the difference between fact and hypothesis.

Oh I know the difference between fact and hypothesis. For example I know that a scientific hypothesis goes far beyond speculation and that in fact a scientific hypothesis has the support of evidence. I also know that to say that a person "has nothing" in reference to a hypothesis based on the evidence, is wrong and requires the one making the "has nothing" claim to be extremely ignorant.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,978
9,068
136
Ppppffffttt,... if the globe is WARMING, then wouldn't this ice that broke off (probably due to global warming) melt in less than a year?!

Also, have these people NOT paid ANY attention to the snowy winter, we JUST had?!

Would your argument be that we've never seen an iceberg before? :hmm:
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Oh I know the difference between fact and hypothesis. For example I know that a scientific hypothesis goes far beyond speculation and that in fact a scientific hypothesis has the support of evidence. I also know that to say that a person "has nothing" in reference to a hypothesis based on the evidence, is wrong and requires the one making the "has nothing" claim to be extremely ignorant.
Hypotheses are a dime a dozen...they may true and they may be false. Give me a call when you've got something real Dr. Einstein.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,400
15,221
146
I may not be nearly as knowledgeable or intelligent as you, but it seems to me that you might want to make an effort to learn the difference between fact and hypothesis.

Let me help you out. Before you can understand where his link is going you need to understand what's going on with the climate.

The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming.
When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can’t stop a change from occurring.
The changes we have seen in the climate so far are only part of the full response we can expect from the current energy imbalance, caused only by the greenhouse gases we have released so far. Global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 and 0.9 degrees Celsius in the past century, and it will likely rise at least 0.6 degrees in response to the existing energy imbalance.
As the surface temperature rises, the amount of heat the surface radiates will increase rapidly (see description of radiative cooling on Page 4). If the concentration of greenhouse gases stabilizes, then Earth’s climate will once again come into equilibrium, albeit with the “thermostat”—global average surface temperature—set at a higher temperature than it was before the Industrial Revolution.
However, as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the amount of absorbed solar energy will continue to exceed the amount of thermal infrared energy that can escape to space. The energy imbalance will continue to grow, and surface temperatures will continue to rise.

Now it's a fact that we've measured this imbalance. It's also a fact that the weather is driven by temperature differentials.

Greater energy can move masses of air faster and farther. More observations and study will show whether this hypothesis is right. It looks like it is.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
Global warming and climate change are not mythological. They're proven science. The causes and effects of are being studied with a vast majority of those studies point towards humanity as a contributing factor.

I've yet to see these vast majority of peer reviewed studies that point toward and significant human contributions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't deny global warming or climate change, or even that humans contribute in a meaningful way to it. I just want some evidence on just how the effects are. Sadly, we don't have any reliable climate data for any meaningful number of years (we didn't have an 'accurate' thermometer until the late 18th century and even then, we didn't have world wide readings for a good bit after).

We know there are periods of warming and cooling of the Earth (and ice ages, which we have not left the last one yet). The problem is we see our recent industrialization at stake (crops being destroyed, weather patterns disputing civilization), and are hoping to keep our climate in line with what we've had the past 5 or 6 centuries.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Let me help you out. Before you can understand where his link is going you need to understand what's going on with the climate.



Now it's a fact that we've measured this imbalance. It's also a fact that the weather is driven by temperature differentials.

Greater energy can move masses of air faster and farther. More observations and study will show whether this hypothesis is right. It looks like it is.
Whether or not the hypothesis is right or wrong...we don't know. But please do explain this "equilibrium" before the Industrial Revolution.
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
16,559
4,473
75
The iceberg probably broke off in the first place because of global warming.

And global warming is responsible for the snowy winter you just had.