Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DAMN, there's so much snow in Calgary...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    NoPropsneeded wrote: View Post
    Wait, in the 20's? What the fuck


    Indian summer?

    Comment


    • #17
      rocwell wrote: View Post


      Indian summer?
      Holy crap, what a jump haha

      Comment


      • #18
        Global warming is a crock of poop..... sorry.

        It is yet another excuse to raise taxes and continue to fund the fraud and corruption that is western governments.... particularly the US.


        Again, these are just the “adjustments”or “corrections” that GISS has applied in the last three years and nine months to the 19 Arctic stations. I have no way of knowing what they did before August of 2010.

        Note the trend line in Figure 4. These recent changes to the data have resulted in more than half of all the warming that has supposedly taken place since the bottom of the Little Ice Age and a third of the difference between GISS LOTI and RSS seen in Figure 1.

        We may never know what the real temperature change has been.

        http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/01/n...a-adjustments/

        If this scandal receives the coverage it deserves (can’t wait for the coverage in the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star), then it may at last make the public – which has largely lost interest in climate – realize that this is not merely a policy non-issue; it represents one of the greatest corruptions of both science and public policy in living memory.

        If that realization dawns, the kindly Swedish professor may not have been persecuted in vain. Meanwhile, the next time somebody asks why there aren’t more publicly skeptical climate scientists, just quote the case of Lennart Bengtsson.

        http://business.financialpost.com/20...e-mccarthyism/

        The fact that surface temperatures have not warmed over the past 17 years showing that their climate models are unreliable, is now amazingly being refuted with quick new research led by James Risbey. In just a matter of weeks, he is leading the charge demonstrating his clearly predisposed bias. Risbey now excuses their nonsense of models that have overestimated global warming with a slapped together study published in Nature Climate Change asserting that their models actually generate good estimates of recent and past trends provided they also took into account natural variability known as El Nino-La Nina phases in the Pacific. OOPS! Cycles?

        http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/0...warming-trend/

        he speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’

        Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

        But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-FREE-now.html

        Comment


        • #19
          NoPropsneeded wrote: View Post
          Wait, in the 20's? What the fuck
          Well most of the summer it was +30 here.

          We get wind currents coming over the Rockies(only about 1 hour and 20 minute drive and you're in Banff) and those currents can drastically change weather patterns. I've been out in my backyard here in February comfortably in a T shirt so it goes both ways.

          Still, blizzards in early September is bizzare and so is 20 weather just after said blizzard.

          Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #20
            Apollo wrote: View Post
            Well most of the summer it was +30 here.

            We get wind currents coming over the Rockies(only about 1 hour and 20 minute drive and you're in Banff) and those currents can drastically change weather patterns. I've been out in my backyard here in February comfortably in a T shirt so it goes both ways.

            Still, blizzards in early September is bizzare and so is 20 weather just after said blizzard.

            Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk
            Well damnn, sounds like the weather there fluctuates a lot

            Comment


            • #21
              Yeah the warm winter winds are called Chinook winds. It breaks up the winter nicely when they blow through.

              Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #22
                mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                Global warming is a crock of poop..... sorry.

                It is yet another excuse to raise taxes and continue to fund the fraud and corruption that is western governments.... particularly the US.
                mcHAPPY, I respect your basketball knowledge, but not your scientific knowledge. Leave your conspiracy theories at home; global warming has been in science literature for more than 100 years; unless you think some clever bureaucratic con-man began a 100 year plan to charge taxes on corporations relative to carbon emissions, you cannot convince me that the idea of global warming is "just another excuse". Besides, the IPCC is international and has nothing to gain by doing the science and modelling likelihoods based on the best available evidence.

                If one model without human participation is an underestimate, and the same model with human participation fits the observation, one can reasonably assess that the warming of the earth (which is a fact, the earth is warming) is not caused by natural forces alone and that humans are causing non-negligable change to the earth's natural variations.



                If you want to argue that the models are faulty, you'll have to delve into the science behind it, and I don't believe you have the education to start from the science and get a conclusion, versus starting from your conclusion and then getting to the science.
                The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                Comment


                • #23
                  enlightenment wrote: View Post
                  mcHAPPY, I respect your basketball knowledge, but not your scientific knowledge. Leave your conspiracy theories at home; global warming has been in science literature for more than 100 years; unless you think some clever bureaucratic con-man began a 100 year plan to charge taxes on corporations relative to carbon emissions, you cannot convince me that the idea of global warming is "just another excuse". Besides, the IPCC is international and has nothing to gain by doing the science and modelling likelihoods based on the best available evidence.

                  If one model without human participation is an underestimate, and the same model with human participation fits the observation, one can reasonably assess that the warming of the earth (which is a fact, the earth is warming) is not caused by natural forces alone and that humans are causing non-negligable change to the earth's natural variations.



                  If you want to argue that the models are faulty, you'll have to delve into the science behind it, and I don't believe you have the education to start from the science and get a conclusion, versus starting from your conclusion and then getting to the science.
                  Did you even read the links I gave?

                  Global warming might be in the literature for more than 100 years but there has been no land surface warming for the last 17 years. Interestingly enough the response by a lead global warming researcher is that the world operates in cycles..... EXACTLY my point. 100 years is a blip in a 6 billion year world. With all the global warming it is amazing how the arctic ice can grow by 40-60% since 2012.

                  I cannot convince you because you already have your mind made up. You have illustrated the exact ignorance and arrogance that has gone in to this research. Do not for one minute think ego and money is not a contributing factor to ANY research. No one likes to be proven wrong..... especially when they've spent years pushing their research.

                  As for my conspiracy theories, I'll take them where ever I like especially in to this conversation when you have idiocy such as this: http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrich...zen-verbieten/

                  Yes, someone actually wants to tax cow farts all in the name of global warming.


                  And while you attempt to discredit my thoughts and opinions stating I don't have the education I believe Lennart Bengtsson does and he doesn't buy it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                    Global warming might be in the literature for more than 100 years but there has been no land surface warming for the last 17 years. Interestingly enough the response by a lead global warming researcher is that the world operates in cycles..... EXACTLY my point. 100 years is a blip in a 6 billion year world. With all the global warming it is amazing how the arctic ice can grow by 40-60% since 2012.
                    This is exactly the science that you lack the background to make claims about. The world operates in cycles, that is a given. The scales of these cycles are vast, and there might be some we do not know about at scales we have not yet detected. However, that is why the operative term is: "change beyond the natural variations of the Earth." There are statistical techniques that can give us confidence in one hypothesis over a random hypothesis. If you want to show that there is a variation we have not accounted for, that is a claim you have made and now have to back up with evidence. The best available evidence (which is not perfect) shows that the increases we have go beyond the natural glaciation cycles. It is now the denier crowd that must postulate a hypothesis as to how those increases could occur through some natural variation that we have not learned about yet.

                    That is, learn something about this earth that can account for the evidence, that we have not learned yet. You can throw numbers that sound convincing to the layman, but you don't how they are dealt with through the models and evidence, and you don't know what kind of known factors lead to such variations.

                    As for temperature plateaus specifically, you don't know the science to state that is against the hypothesis of global warming. It could be a cooling cycle of the earth neutralized by anthropogenic warming that leads to the plateau. What occurs when the earths cycle directs towards warming in the next decade, and instead of neutralizing anthropogenic warming, they reinforce each other? The warming we experienced for 60 years between 1940s and 2000s, included plateaus, yet cannot be accounted for by all-natural models.
                    Last edited by enlightenment; Fri Sep 12, 2014, 01:32 PM.
                    The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      enlightenment wrote: View Post
                      This is exactly the science that you lack the background to make claims about. The world operates in cycles, that is a given. The scales of these cycles are vast, and there might be some we do not know about at scales we have not yet detected. However, that is why the operative term is: "change beyond the natural variations of the Earth." There are statistical techniques that can give us confidence in one hypothesis over a random hypothesis. If you want to show that there is a variation we have not accounted for, that is a claim you have made and now have to back up with evidence. The best available evidence (which is not perfect) shows that the increases we have go beyond the natural glaciation cycles. It is now the denier crowd that must postulate a hypothesis as to how those increases could occur through some natural variation that we have not learned about yet.

                      That is, learn something about this earth that can account for the evidence, that we have not learned yet. You can throw numbers that sound convincing to the layman, but you don't how they are dealt with through the models and evidence, and you don't know what kind of known factors lead to such variations.

                      As for temperature plateaus specifically, you don't know the science to state that is against the hypothesis of global warming. It could be a cooling cycle of the earth neutralized by anthropogenic warming that leads to the plateau. What occurs when the earths cycle directs towards warming in the next decade, and instead of neutralizing anthropogenic warming, they reinforce each other? The warming we experienced for 60 years between 1940s and 2000s, included plateaus, yet cannot be accounted for by all-natural models.
                      So what you're saying is you know more than Lennart Bengtsson. Gotcha. And in a nutshell you don't know what is causing anything but it is happening because you and so many others believe it to be true. Gotcha.

                      The burden of proof still remains with those proclaiming a global epidemic considering most research has proven to be flawed, inaccurate, and fudged.

                      You keep going on about science that I don't have education about. To that I say duck you. I might not have education in that field but I can certainly read findings of those who do and draw my own conclusions. attempts to circumvent those rights to form opinions based on scientific research is right up there with the Orwellian Thought Police.

                      Global warming is right up there with the baby seal. The baby seal is nothing more than a money grab for PETA while scientists are eager to prove global warming to validate the calls for more taxes by politicians and bureaucrats.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Even if "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" aren't real, what's wrong with trying to live a cleaner existence or penalizing those who choose to harm and pollute our planet? Or is "pollution" just a money grab too?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Damn it guys. Can't just one thread about about the vast frozen army I have in my backyard not end up a debate as to the validity of global warming---Er I mean "climate change".

                          Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                            So what you're saying is you know more than Lennart Bengtsson. Gotcha. And in a nutshell you don't know what is causing anything but it is happening because you and so many others believe it to be true. Gotcha.

                            The burden of proof still remains with those proclaiming a global epidemic considering most research has proven to be flawed, inaccurate, and fudged.

                            You keep going on about science that I don't have education about. To that I say duck you. I might not have education in that field but I can certainly read findings of those who do and draw my own conclusions. attempts to circumvent those rights to form opinions based on scientific research is right up there with the Orwellian Thought Police.

                            Global warming is right up there with the baby seal. The baby seal is nothing more than a money grab for PETA while scientists are eager to prove global warming to validate the calls for more taxes by politicians and bureaucrats.
                            Way to not read what I said
                            The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              enlightenment wrote: View Post
                              Way to not read what I said
                              I don't have education, remember?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Joey wrote: View Post
                                Even if "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" aren't real, what's wrong with trying to live a cleaner existence or penalizing those who choose to harm and pollute our planet? Or is "pollution" just a money grab too?
                                Nothing wrong with trying to live a cleaner existence. It is socially responsible for us all to do so.

                                The issue is reactive measures such as taxing carbon emissions are ineffective. You're taking productive assets and turning them into unproductive assets. The government and the bureaucracy is much too big and intrusive today. Call me a conspiracy theorist but anyone who takes an objective look at the word today will see it. I believe in democracy and capitalism along with the things that make Canada, Canada.

                                The way to promote a cleaner environment is proactive measures such as tax incentives and breaks for clean practices. Provide incentives versus imposing additional taxes. The research and development of these cleaner practices will more than pay for themselves.

                                The solutions to most of the worlds problems today are to do the opposite of what is being done.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X