Thread: The Himalayas and Nearby Peaks have lost..... no ice over the last 10 years.

Originally Posted by Gill

Great !!!! I'll expect you to comment the next time someone claims that hurricanes, or tornadoes, or monsoons, or Texas brush fires are due to global warming.

When you add all of that together from every continent on Earth, it's no longer "anecdotal", that's the point he was making. Nobody in their right mind can deny that the extreme weather all over the world in the last 1-2 years is connected to the weather pattern that is La Nina - why? Because the aggregate of all the evidence combine to show that, not just one anecdotal evidence.

If the GW/CC denier can amass evidence from almost every continent on Earth to show that the temperature is not rising, and there's no effect on the Earth, instead of making a big deal because the Himalayas snow cap is only melting at the lower altitude and is not at as high a rate as previously estimated, then they would have shown a trend, and not an anecdotal evidence. Until then, all they are doing is mistaking anecdotal evidence for a trend.

Originally Posted by nonpareil

When you add all of that together from every continent on Earth, it's no longer "anecdotal", that's the point he was making. Nobody in their right mind can deny that the extreme weather all over the world in the last 1-2 years is connected to the weather pattern that is La Nina - why? Because the aggregate of all the evidence combine to show that, not just one anecdotal evidence.

If the GW/CC denier can amass evidence from almost every continent on Earth to show that the temperature is not rising, and there's no effect on the Earth, instead of making a big deal because the Himalayas snow cap is only melting at the lower altitude and is not at as high a rate as previously estimated, then they would have shown a trend, and not an anecdotal evidence. Until then, all they are doing is mistaking anecdotal evidence for a trend.

As soon as someone says "extreme weather" I stop taking them seriously, weather has been and always been extreme. There were droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods etc before industrialization. The dust bowl era and the little ice age are two recent examples. When you say extreme weather I immediately write you off as a brainwashed extreme warmer loon who has lost track of reality.

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

As soon as someone says "extreme weather" I stop taking them seriously, weather has been and always been extreme. There were droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods etc before industrialization. The dust bowl era and the little ice age are two recent examples. When you say extreme weather I immediately write you off as a brainwashed extreme warmer loon who has lost track of reality.

That's a coincidence! We think equally well of those who parrot empty denier cult rhetoric. (see how that works?) The claim, as you should know, is not simply that there will be such events, but that their frequency will rise due to the increased energy in the atmosphere. Those events are memorable because of their rarity. If they were commonplace? Not so much.

Originally Posted by Manc Skipper

That's a coincidence! We think equally well of those who parrot empty denier cult rhetoric. (see how that works?) The claim, as you should know, is not simply that there will be such events, but that their frequency will rise due to the increased energy in the atmosphere. Those events are memorable because of their rarity. If they were commonplace? Not so much.

What exactly is ""empty denier cult rhetoric"? My example of this with warmers in my last post was "extreme weather", what is your example phrase that us skeptics parrot? Really I'm curious how you perceive this.

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

As soon as someone says "extreme weather" I stop taking them seriously, weather has been and always been extreme. There were droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods etc before industrialization. The dust bowl era and the little ice age are two recent examples. When you say extreme weather I immediately write you off as a brainwashed extreme warmer loon who has lost track of reality.

Well, that doesn't surprise me. Your posts paint you as someone who's closed minded and hostile to evidence that contradicts your beliefs. Not all weather events are extreme, and statistics are able to capture this fact very well. A flood that exceeds a more than one hundred years record is not a "has been and always" event, it's an event that occurs once in more than a hundred years, it's an extreme event.

If you can't even understand such a simple fact, it's so wonder your arguements against GW seem to always fail.

Originally Posted by nonpareil

Well, that doesn't surprise me. Your posts paint you as someone who's closed minded and hostile to evidence that contradicts your beliefs. Not all weather events are extreme, and statistics are able to capture this fact very well. A flood that exceeds a more than one hundred years record is not a "has been and always" event, it's an event that occurs once in more than a hundred years, it's an extreme event.

If you can't even understand such a simple fact, it's so wonder your arguements against GW seem to always fail.

Once again it is hard to take you serious. A once in a 100 year weather event is only extreme to you because you judge things like this based on a human lifespan. A 100 years is a nanosecond in earths life span and when you say OMG, this hasn't happened in 100 years you inadvertently admit the event has happened before, BEFORE INDUSTRIALIZATION! Get it?

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

Once again it is hard to take you serious. A once in a 100 year weather event is only extreme to you because you judge things like this based on a human lifespan. A 100 years is a nanosecond in earths life span and when you say OMG, this hasn't happened in 100 years you inadvertently admit the event has happened before, BEFORE INDUSTRIALIZATION! Get it?

Since no one denies that extreme weather event has happened before and "BEFORE INDUSTRIALIZATION", what relevance is this to the fact that a less than 1% probability event is not a "has been and always" event? It seems you are unable to grasp that simple statistic. Measuring it over a million years won't change the fact that it happens once in every hundred or so years. Got it?

Originally Posted by Deuce

I think you've missed a key point: nobody (in the scientific community) said an ice age was coming and even those who projected cooling were a small minority. (who then changed their minds after more data was gathered)

So these scientist were ostracized from the scientific community?

Originally Posted by nonpareil

When you add all of that together from every continent on Earth, it's no longer "anecdotal", that's the point he was making. Nobody in their right mind can deny that the extreme weather all over the world in the last 1-2 years is connected to the weather pattern that is La Nina - why? Because the aggregate of all the evidence combine to show that, not just one anecdotal evidence.

If the GW/CC denier can amass evidence from almost every continent on Earth to show that the temperature is not rising, and there's no effect on the Earth, instead of making a big deal because the Himalayas snow cap is only melting at the lower altitude and is not at as high a rate as previously estimated, then they would have shown a trend, and not an anecdotal evidence. Until then, all they are doing is mistaking anecdotal evidence for a trend.

Nobody is argueing that the world isn't or might not be warming.

Originally Posted by nonpareil

Since no one denies that extreme weather event has happened before and "BEFORE INDUSTRIALIZATION", what relevance is this to the fact that a less than 1% probability event is not a "has been and always" event? It seems you are unable to grasp that simple statistic. Measuring it over a million years won't change the fact that it happens once in every hundred or so years. Got it?

If something hasn't happened in 100 years it has a 1% probability if you limit youreself to 100 year intervals in relation to a planet as old as earth. That is really funny, thanks for the laugh, laughing is good.