Warm?

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

If you want to cherry pick your start and end points to make your case.

Quote

kinda like the other side is doing, eh?
Oh, the irony.

Nonsense. You can look at CO2 data for over a half million years and you will not see them higher than they currently are. That's not cherry picking data. That is a fact.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,593]

Quote

Spell it out Kallend. Show us where I said the USA data and reports equate to the entire world. Bring it old man.

Whichever way you're trying to spin this (and it sounds like you're now claiming you were just nitpicking a semantic point) you're still wrong.

You took Kallend to task for saying the USA is not the same as the Earth by pointing out the USA is part of the Earth. Well guess what? He's right. If set A is entirely part of set B but set B is not entirely part of set A, set A does not equal set B. They are different.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

Quote

I want real examples.

Here's a few easy examples, most of which are pretty painless:


Don't drive any motor vehicle when your feet or a bicycle will do the job.

I've been doing this and I've been surprised at how easy and enjoyable it has been.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

I want real examples.

Here's a few easy examples, most of which are pretty painless:

Don't drive a large car/SUV when a subcompact will do the job.

Don't drive any motor vehicle when your feet or a bicycle will do the job.

Combine trips.

Buy locally grown food whenever possible.

Eat less meat.

When possible, use a toaster oven instead of a full size oven.

Keep your tires inflated.

Use rechargeable batteries.

Use LED lighting whenever practical.

Turn off lights when leaving a room. Turn off appliances when not in use.

Whenever practical, plug electronics into surge protector with power switch, and switch the whole thing off instead of allowing the electronics to go on standby.

Turn the thermostat down a couple degrees in the winter and up a couple of degrees in the summer.

It's really not hard to significantly reduce one's carbon footprint without significant changes to one's lifestyle.

Great. If everyone did this we wouldn't have to worry about AGW?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[quade 4]

Quote

Great. If everyone did this we wouldn't have to worry about AGW?

You said, "few." He gave you more than a "few" yet you seem to infer that as all.

No. That's not the case. The list could be quite large, but what would be the point of presenting it here to you since you seem to be looking for loopholes rather than solutions.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[popsjumper 2]

Shut up jakee nobody is talking to you plus, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Your interpretation of what John was saying is wrong.
Maybe you need reading comprehension classes, too.

Just for you:

John was saying that the U.S. data shows something different than the world data (and he's obviously correct) and you can't go by what's happening in the U.S. and apply across the board. And he's obviously correct.

John's point is about the world data, not U.S data.
He wants to gloss over the fact the his world data includes the U.S. Pretty simple concept. It funny how you two twist shit around making mountains out of molehills.

John...still waiting to see my comment that validates yours.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

*SIGH*

Quote

Is it really that difficult for some people to understand that the US having a cooler than average month does not imply that the world was cooler than average during that month?

Nope. Why are you asking me that question?

Quote

It doesn't matter a bit that "the U.S.A. was sitting right there on the earth."

Wrong. Data for the U.S. is included in your "world" numbers and reports. What's so hard for you and Kallend to understand about that?

Your logic is deficient.

The mean of the list of data points {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10} is greater than the mean of the list of data points {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, even though every data point in the second set is also in the first set.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

numbers can be crunched however you like.

You can crunch numbers however you like. That's one of the great things about math. There's a near infinite number of ways to solve many problems, but every method, applied correctly, reaches the same result.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Shut up jakee nobody is talking to you plus, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Actually, Jakee's post was spot on. And I'm quite certain that I know what I'm talking about, at least when it comes to mathematics.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,146]

Your weaseling doesn't hide the fact that you were wrong. Others have already indicated your errors.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Great. If everyone did this we wouldn't have to worry about AGW?

You said, "few." He gave you more than a "few" yet you seem to infer that as all.

No. That's not the case. The list could be quite large, but what would be the point of presenting it here to you since you seem to be looking for loopholes rather than solutions.

Can you point me in the direction of a source that details what would need to be done...completely...entirely? Point being I think it would require economic suicide to solve the problem.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Great. If everyone did this we wouldn't have to worry about AGW?

You said, "few." He gave you more than a "few" yet you seem to infer that as all.

No. That's not the case. The list could be quite large, but what would be the point of presenting it here to you since you seem to be looking for loopholes rather than solutions.

Can you point me in the direction of a source that details what would need to be done...completely...entirely? Point being I think it would require economic suicide to solve the problem.

What do you mean by that? Return atmospheric CO2 to 17th Century levels?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,593]

Quote

Shut up jakee nobody is talking to you plus, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Beg to differ.

Quote

John was saying that the U.S. data shows something different than the world data (and he's obviously correct) and you can't go by what's happening in the U.S. and apply across the board. And he's obviously correct.

You should probably tell that to the guy who called it a 'stupid statement'. I have a mirror you can use.

Quote

He wants to gloss over the fact the his world data includes the U.S.

No he doesn't. He's just pointing out that a local, short term trend does not disprove a global, long term trend. Do you disagree with that?

Quote

It funny how you two twist shit around making mountains out of molehills.

Hilarious. You told him he was stupid for saying the USA != the earth. Well guess what, he's right, you're wrong and now you're just trying to spin your way out of it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you want to cherry pick your start and end points to make your case.

Quote

kinda like the other side is doing, eh?
Oh, the irony.

Nonsense. You can look at CO2 data for over a half million years and you will not see them higher than they currently are. That's not cherry picking data. That is a fact.

What about this fact?
"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx

[blueblur 0]

That was exactly my point on the first page, these are cyclical trends. Sure, we may be speeding it up a tad, but the earth will balance itself out again at some point in the future. Probably gonna be cold again for a while...

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[billvon 3,107]

>OK, I challenge you to post relevant and reliable data to back up your claim.

CO2 levels are rising:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

We are responsible for that:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/

http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_5/16_1.shtml

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

http://twosides.fi/Content/newsPDF_34.pdf

CO2 is a greenhouse gas:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

Increasing CO2 increases overall heat retained by the Earth:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas causing the warming, with other anthropogenic gases causing less warming:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If you want to cherry pick your start and end points to make your case.

Quote

kinda like the other side is doing, eh?
Oh, the irony.

Nonsense. You can look at CO2 data for over a half million years and you will not see them higher than they currently are. That's not cherry picking data. That is a fact.

What about this fact?
"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I've never understood the point of this line of reasoning. Is it that as long as the current climate doesn't exceed any climate extreme that has ever occurred at any point in the past then everything is OK? Then we could look at the end of the Permian, when a super-volcano (sort of like Yellowstone today) began to erupt through one of the largest coal fields in the world. Not only did the eruptions burn a tremendous amount of coal, greatly elevating atmospheric CO2, but heating coal without igniting it converts it to methane, which is an even stronger greenhouse gas. As ocean temperatures began to increase, methane clathrate deposits on the ocean floor converted to methane gas, displacing oxygen from the water and eventually reaching the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect. The result was a runaway greenhouse event in which atmospheric CO2 levels rose by over 2,000 ppm, and the temperature rose by at least 8 degrees C (14.4 degrees F); there is evidence that the ocean surface reached 40 degrees C. At least 96% of marine species, and over 70% of terrestrial species, went extinct during this event; the extinction was so severe it took about 15 million years for species diversity to return to the levels seen just before the extinction. All of this was a natural event, as there were no people then. I doubt anyone would say that just because the event was natural, it would be OK for it to happen today.

At other times when the Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today, a lot of what is presently land was under water. During the Cretaceous, the entire middle section of North America, including nearly all of Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Montana, North and South Dakota, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories were under water, so that the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean were connected by a sea that was over 1,500 miles wide in places. I doubt that people who live in those areas today would appreciate a return to those conditions. Just because something happened in the past does not mean it is something we would care to experience today.

One should bear in mind that well over a billion people live within a hundred feet or so of sea level. If sea levels were to rise significantly, those people would all have to go somewhere, as they certainly wouldn't stay put. That means they'd be crowding into areas that are also already occupied. For example, if the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps were to melt, the shoreline of the southeastern US would be just a little south of Macon, Georgia; all of Florida and the southern 1/3 of Georgia would be under water, and all those people would have to go somewhere. The point is, even natural events that occurred in the past would have a catastrophic effect on human populations and societies were they to happen today.

Also, the argument that if something (such as increasing temperatures) happened due to non-anthropogenic forces in the past, then they cannot be influenced by anthropogenic forces today, is clearly silly. Just because your house might catch fire from a lightning strike is no reason to ignore the guy with a gas can and lighter in your garage.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The mean of the list of data points {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10} is greater than the mean of the list of data points {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, even though every data point in the second set is also in the first set.

Where {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10} is world data.
and {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} is U.S. data.

Is that too difficult to recognize you are saying the same thing? U.S. data is included in the world data reports?

What I'm seeing is:
World data sums up to "getting warmer" while U.S. data apparently says we are getting cooler.

Easy enough. Not all that difficult.
Being intentionally obtuse is not difficult either, is it?

You can fancy it up all you want but it still comes out the same unless you can explain to us mere mortals how you can justify calling it "world" data if the U.S. is not included in that.....as if the U.S. exists somehow outside the realm of "the world"

Are you saying that they are two mutually exclusive entities? If that's true then just say so.

I can see Kallend's got panties all wadded up when said I'd go with NOAA. He resents anyone preferring climate conditions other than he dictates to us.

Me: I prefer what NOAA is tell us about it getting cooler. Yep, I prefer cooler temps in the summer.
Kallend: You're an idiot for preferring cooler temps. I said the world is getting warmer andyou have to take that regardless of your personal desires.

Bullshit

So if you still don't understand what I said, let it go.
If you think you understand now, but I'm still wrong, then please by all means educate me.
I could be wrong and you could be right.



STILL waiting for Kallend to justify the words he tried to put into my mouth.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jakee 1,593]

Quote

Kallend: You're an idiot for preferring cooler temps. I said the world is getting warmer andyou have to take that regardless of your personal desires....
.
.
.
STILL waiting for Kallend to justify the words he tried to put into my mouth.

Genius.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Your weaseling doesn't hide the fact that you were wrong. Others have already indicated your errors.

Don't depend on others! Defend yourself. You're the one in error. Read the post again. Quote it in your response and tell me about it then.
I am wrong for preferring cooler temps in the U/S?
You don't like that?

You My senile friend are unbelievable.


And you still can't justify your the blatant misreading the post in order to put words in my mouth.
No there.

You're caught with your pants down trying again to wiggle for all of God's glory....as is typical of you.

Now you two bozos...after Kallend's justification post...get back to the original topic.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Your weaseling doesn't hide the fact that you were wrong. Others have already indicated your errors.

Don't depend on others! Defend yourself. You're the one in error. Read the post again. Quote it in your response and tell me about it then.
I am wrong for preferring cooler temps in the U/S?
You don't like that?

You My senile friend are unbelievable.


And you still can't justify your the blatant misreading the post in order to put words in my mouth.
No there.

You're caught with your pants down trying again to wiggle for all of God's glory....as is typical of you.

Now you two bozos...after Kallend's justification post...get back to the original topic.

That will be enough of that.

Comment on the data and posts, not the users.

Only warning.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

..... He's just pointing out that a local, short term trend does not disprove a global, long term trend. Do you disagree with that?

Nope. Never did.

Quote

It funny how you two twist shit around making mountains out of molehills.

Quote

Hilarious. You told him he was stupid for saying the USA != the earth. Well guess what, he's right, you're wrong and now you're just trying to spin your way out of it.

Did you mean inn this post?

Kallend: Another geographically challenged person who can't tell the difference between the USA and the Earth.

Me: What a stupid statement!
Well professor, you should stick to your specialty whatever that is. Last time I checked the U.S.A. was sitting right there on the earth.

Show where I said the U.S is anything other than a part of the world.

Yeah...it's pretty stupid to spin it that somebody doesn't know the difference between the U.S and the world.. Pretty stupid statement. Another attempt by Kallend to misdirect when he fails in his mind reading.
One poor misguided soul if you believe U.S. = World. That's not spin, my thought-challenged friend.

Jakee, you need you need to think before you type.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jakee 1,593]

Quote

And you still can't justify your the blatant misreading the post in order to put words in my mouth.
No [Shocked] there.

You're being a dick, and here's why.

There is no way, given the context of the conversation, that anyone could have interpreted your original post as simply saying "I like it when it's cool in summer". Never going to happen, not from anyone.

So your post leaves two options open, for people to ignore it, or reply to what they think you meant - which appeared to be support of GM's point. You then had two options: to simply point out that you had meant something different, or launch straight into a bunch of personal attacks to anyone with the temerity to reply. Since you took the second option you're either feeling even angrier than usual today, or the whole thing was just a 'gotcha' set up from the start. Either way leaves us with the conclusion, you're being a dick.

And you're still wrong, the USA is not the earth even if it is part of the earth, and US data is not global data even if it contributes to global data.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,593]

Quote

Quote

Hilarious. You told him he was stupid for saying the USA != the earth. Well guess what, he's right, you're wrong and now you're just trying to spin your way out of it.

One poor misguided soul if you believe U.S. = World. That's not spin, my thought-challenged friend.

[sigh]

!= means 'does not equal', as should have been blindingly obvious from the history of the conversation. Care to try again?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,107]

And your one warning.