• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Armageddon has arrived

iguanaman said:
It is not correct to describe el Nino as simply "weather". It is a powerful weather pattern that has far reaching and predictable results that are outside of normal weather.
Click to expand...
I think that when you say the el Nino is a weather pattern, implies that it is in fact normal weather.
We may not understand the cycle, but it is in fact a cycle that has been observed for
over a century. I believe some references to the pattern go back to the early Spanish colonies.
 
iguanaman said:
The fact is that there is no sure way of telling how warming will effect systems like el Nino/la Nina so discounting extremes due to AGW as "bunk" is not logical. What we do know is that weather is taking us on a wild ride currently and extreme weather events are on the rise in the last decade.
Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds | Environment | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Or maybe if you actually check out the historical facts instead of the hype they are doing the opposite ?

Forbes Welcome

Also.....

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means « Roy Spencer, PhD

So much for the accuracy of those models then. Maybe Crystal balls would be better next time
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I think that when you say the el Nino is a weather pattern, implies that it is in fact normal weather.
We may not understand the cycle, but it is in fact a cycle that has been observed for
over a century. I believe some references to the pattern go back to the early Spanish colonies.
Click to expand...

Actually el Nino it is a cause of ABNORMAL weather patterns and its occurrence is currently unpredictable as it happens every 2 to 10 years. If el Nino ever becomes the norm it will be disastrous for many areas of the globe. S. Africa for example is currently suffering from heat waves and drought that will result in famine.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Actually el Nino it is a cause of ABNORMAL weather patterns and its occurrence is currently unpredictable as it happens every 2 to 10 years. If el Nino ever becomes the norm it will be disastrous for many areas of the globe. S. Africa for example is currently suffering from heat waves and drought that will result in famine.
Click to expand...
You miss the point, the fact that it is a cycle that has been going on for over a century,
says that it is normal.
We may not know when it is coming, but we do know it is.
 
longview said:
You miss the point, the fact that it is a cycle that has been going on for over a century,
says that it is normal.
We may not know when it is coming, but we do know it is.
Click to expand...

It is not part of normal weather, cycle or not. If el Nino's are intensifying or happening more frequently it will cause major problems worldwide. If el Nino's ever became the norm it would be a disaster and since we don't fully understand their cause it is certainly a possibility.
 
iguanaman said:
It is not part of normal weather, cycle or not. If el Nino's are intensifying or happening more frequently it will cause major problems worldwide. If el Nino's ever became the norm it would be a disaster and since we don't fully understand their cause it is certainly a possibility.
Click to expand...
We may not understand their cause, but we do know they have been happening regularly
for a long time, which makes them normal events.
It looks very cyclical,
El Niño and La Niña Years and Intensities
For all we know el Nini's are a feedback mechanism to bleed off extra energy.
I don't pretend to understand the the basis of Dr. Lindzen Atmospheric Iris,
Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog : Feature Articles
but stranger things have been observed in Nature.
 
iguanaman said:
It is not correct to describe el Nino as simply "weather". It is a powerful weather pattern that has far reaching and predictable results that are outside of normal weather.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about your "It's raining in Florida in the Dry season" silliness. That is weather.

And I would argue that a powerful cyclical weather pattern that has far reaching predictable results is well within "normal weather" phenomenon.
 
DaveFagan said:
Small minds think small, if at all. The OIL fire alone of 30 million barrels per day would make an open fire equivalent to a lake about 49 miles by 49 miles and eight feet deep, every day. 30 million barrels @ 42 gallons per barrel, 30 x 10 to the sixth times 42, or 1,260,000,000 gallons. A one acre pond 8 feet deep is about a million gallons. That would make 1,260 one acre ponds 8 feet deep. Each acre is 207 feet by 207 feet. 207feet times 1,260 equals 260,820 feet by 260,820 feet. One linear mile is 5280 feet and divide that into 260,820 to see how many miles this lake of oil would be on each side hypothesizing a square lake. 260,820/5280 equals 49,39 miles on each side. So just picture this roughly 50 miles square lake of OIL burning next to your trailer and you will only be envisioning the daily use of OIL and it happens every day and that is just the OIL and perhaps just 25% of the World energy usage. Move your trailer a few miles away from the heat, mind you.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't do maths in imperial but I'll take your word for it.

All the oil in the word used in one location would be a fire in the form of a square about 7 miles by 7. OK. That's tiny then. No significant direct effect on the world's energy budget at all due to the direct heating effect.

The world is a big place. If you can work out the percentage of the world's surface you have specified with your 7 mile square fire you will then understand why it's not important.
 
vesper said:
Al Gore using data shared by the IPPC scientists, predicted 10 years ago on this day Armageddon would occur and life on earth as we know it would change forever.
So I thought it fitting since members are located all over the world, that we could all share what is currently happening in our neck of the woods. Are any of you witnessing cities on the coastlines being submerged due to rising ocean waters or seen any polar bears floating by on chunks of glacier ice?


Here in central Ohio the skies are baby blue, sunshine, currently 27 degrees.
Click to expand...


Well, I would have to go back and watch An Inconvienent Truth to see if he actually said that.

Al Gore, like most authors of papers suggesting AGW is a problem, often use a dozen or more Weasel Words per page in their papers. They choose words that are selectively interpreted by the bias of their readers that read the material.

As far as I know, he, or anyone else, never gave any time-frame as definitive.

But...

Weasel words. Probabilities on top of probabilities. If's on top of if on top of ifs.

They have nothing conclusive. If a "if" is worth 50%, then by the time you have three "ifs," the probability is only 12.5%. Yet they will tale multiple if's and claim 90 or 95% of a probability.

They rarely come out with any outright lie. They word things, and let the ignorant pundits do that for them.

Take the NASA consensus for example:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Please note the paragraph that started with this:


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (note 1) show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:
​

Now, I find it so ironic and pathetic at the same time that nobody given this information apparently has never read what those papers actually say. It leads me to believe that I might be the only one that ever actually read those studies referenced in note 1. No matter how many times I ask, nobody on the AGW scare side can point to anything in any of the referred studies that support the contention by the three listed at the bottom of the page.

Please note, none of them are climatologists!

Now I'm sorry for my long drawn out explanation here, and Vesper, I don't mean to undercut your point.

I'm just trying to help expose the big charlatan style sham, and how much this whole thing is far more political than factual.

There is no scientific evidence that what we do matters. It is all hyped and blown out of proportion. There is a natural component that might be most of any signal we see.

I'll say more later, but right now, I'm multitasking an at my limit of how many things I can do at once.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, I would have to go back and watch An Inconvienent Truth to see if he actually said that.

Al Gore, like most authors of papers suggesting AGW is a problem, often use a dozen or more Weasel Words per page in their papers. They choose words that are selectively interpreted by the bias of their readers that read the material.

As far as I know, he, or anyone else, never gave any time-frame as definitive.

But...

Weasel words. Probabilities on top of probabilities. If's on top of if on top of ifs.

They have nothing conclusive. If a "if" is worth 50%, then by the time you have three "ifs," the probability is only 12.5%. Yet they will tale multiple if's and claim 90 or 95% of a probability.

They rarely come out with any outright lie. They word things, and let the ignorant pundits do that for them.

Take the NASA consensus for example:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Please note the paragraph that started with this:


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (note 1) show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:
​

Now, I find it so ironic and pathetic at the same time that nobody given this information apparently has never read what those papers actually say. It leads me to believe that I might be the only one that ever actually read those studies referenced in note 1. No matter how many times I ask, nobody on the AGW scare side can point to anything in any of the referred studies that support the contention by the three listed at the bottom of the page.

Please note, none of them are climatologists!

Now I'm sorry for my long drawn out explanation here, and Vesper, I don't mean to undercut your point.

I'm just trying to help expose the big charlatan style sham, and how much this whole thing is far more political than factual.

There is no scientific evidence that what we do matters. It is all hyped and blown out of proportion. There is a natural component that might be most of any signal we see.

I'll say more later, but right now, I'm multitasking an at my limit of how many things I can do at once.
Click to expand...

Gooooood evening LOP!

Keep doin what you have been doin for years LOP exposing the sham of a scam. It's wine time.....salute!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom