whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 No one is interested in the facts, so whats the point. F it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 A lot of people missed this "uh...it's also getting warmer on other planets too, retards" story. I think it got lost in the shuffle with the Climagate thing taking precedence. It is by far the more important story. We've raped and killed our own planet with greenhouse gases. Now you mean to tell me we're raping and killing other peoples planets? I feel so guilty. How much do carbon credits cost again? Maybe I'll buy a few extra to offset some of Al Gore's mansion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 No one is interested in the facts, so whats the point. F it Particularly yourself. Nice job misrepresenting the article above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Particularly yourself. Nice job misrepresenting the article above. That was an exact quote from the article and it was not out of context. Point is you can't have it both ways. First to say that your modeling predicts a positive phase NAO from global warming gases and than to say that projected loss of Arctic sea ice due to climate change predicts a negative phase NOA. WTF! Why does the NOA need always to be views through the prism of global warming, why can't it be natural fluctuations. Also 1+(-1)=0 Edited February 3, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 That was an exact quote from the article and it was not out of context. Point is you can't have it both ways. First to say that your modeling predicts a positive phase NAO from global warming gases and than to say that projected loss of Arctic sea ice due to climate change predicts a negative phase NOA. WTF! Why does the NOA need always to be views through the prism of global warming, why can't it be natural fluctuations. Also 1+(-1)=0 So you didn't take the quote out of context...you just didn't provide the correct context. Yeah, that's a great defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) So you didn't take the quote out of context...you just didn't provide the correct context. Yeah, that's a great defense. Man, you need to take yoga classes and try to relax. BTW it's ok for you to be wrong, you're human like the rest of us. Edited February 3, 2011 by whateverdude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Man, you need to take yoga classes and try to relax. BTW it's ok for you to be wrong, you're human like the rest of us. Link? Don't get carried away here. Edited February 3, 2011 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Spoken like a person who doesn't care if we tax and spend billions upon billions of dollars regulating something and forcing companies to comply with some things strictly because of something that may or may not exist. Because, y'know, what's the big deal if it does or doesn't exist, right? It's just like a massive milk spill. Sure there's never been one, but we must be prepared beccause when milk spills, people die. THEY DIE!!! Yet another amazing swimmer who defied the odds. God only knows what would have come of the ones you beat. Politics gets bogged down and complicated. But it always boils down to basic human nature. In this case, its like "easy come, easy go". When you don't have to work for the money or never had to, like most of these politicians, you have no sense of value for it. Just hit up LA Billz for more cash if needed. Thats all they know how to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Man, you need to take yoga classes and try to relax. BTW it's ok for you to be wrong, you're human like the rest of us. Trust me, when I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But I wasn't wrong. You took a quote out of context. Then proved you didn't understand it, which was mildly funny (only mildly...you're not nearly as hilariously good at it as conner. Man, I miss that knucklehead...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Trust me, when I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But I wasn't wrong. You took a quote out of context. Then proved you didn't understand it, which was mildly funny (only mildly...you're not nearly as hilariously good at it as conner. Man, I miss that knucklehead...) No, you failed to understand me and the article (its not rocket science), which was mildly funny also. Carry on I'll be your conner till he returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 No, you failed to understand me and the article (its not rocket science), which was mildly funny also. Carry on I'll be your conner till he returns. No, I understood it. It was pretty damn clear. Would you like me to explain it to you? Or would you rather wait for Bill Nye to cover it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 No, I understood it. It was pretty damn clear. Would you like me to explain it to you? Or would you rather wait for Bill Nye to cover it? Bill Nye....funny. No, you did not understand it because if you did you would realize that it is NOT "pretty damn clear" They have the cause where the effect should be and the effect where the cause should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 They have the cause where the effect should be and the effect where the cause should be. No, they don't. They're talking about two different things - greenhouse gasses driving the oscillation, and the loss of sea ice driving the oscillation. They don't equate the two in that site, you're simply equating them in your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 No, they don't. They're talking about two different things - greenhouse gasses driving the oscillation, and the loss of sea ice driving the oscillation. They don't equate the two in that site, you're simply equating them in your mind. They are trying to provide an explanation as to why their models are not confirming their views on GW. "Increasing carbon dioxide in most of the models does show a weak positive response". This is counter to the deeply negative phase NOA we have been in for quite some time. So what do they do..come up with another model that confirms their preconceived ideas that the melting ice is favorable to a negative phase NOA hence allowing them to point to global warming as the cause, but not before they get a few more grants to confirm this, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 They are trying to provide an explanation as to why their models are not confirming their views on GW. No, they're not. They're researching the interplay between oceanic and atmospheric effects in the arctic oscillation. It's not even a piece on global warming; it's a piece on scientists who study oceanic currents and their effects on near-term weather. You learn how to fly a plane by reading Chuck Yeager's biography? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 No, they're not. They're researching the interplay between oceanic and atmospheric effects in the arctic oscillation. It's not even a piece on global warming; it's a piece on scientists who study oceanic currents and their effects on near-term weather. You learn how to fly a plane by reading Chuck Yeager's biography? Come on, see what they are doing. The are using independent models without any proof of association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Come on, see what they are doing. The are using independent models without any proof of association. Yes. They're researching something that's not proven. That's kind of the point of that whole "research" thing, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yes. They're researching something that's not proven. That's kind of the point of that whole "research" thing, really. Not this again, why do we always come back to the Scientific method. Screw it, you're right I'm a dumb ass and don't know what I'm reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) For future reference, when something says "because the orbit changes", ask yourself very carefully: "Does this violate conservation of energy?" before quoting it. That was such a stupid answer. Thanks for sharing it...I got a big kick out of it. Wait though - doesn't the orbit of the earth vary due to eccentricity? I thought there were small variations over time? Edited February 3, 2011 by yall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Not this again, why do we always come back to the Scientific method. Because you're a dumbass and don't know what you're reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts