A brutal and historical cold snap has so far caused 80 deaths in South America, according to international news agencies. Temperatures have been much below normal for over a week in vast areas of the continent. In Chile, the Aysen region was affected early last week by the worst snowstorm in 30 years. The snow accumulation reached 5 feet in Balmaceda and the Army was called to rescue people trapped by the snow.
In Argentina, the snow in the region of Mendoza, famous for its winery, was described by localimagemeteorologists as the heaviest in a decade. The temperature in the morning of July 16th was the lowest in the city of Buenos Aires since 1991: -1.5C. The cold snap caused a record demand for energy and Argentina had to import electricity from Brazil. Many industries in Argentina were shut down due to gas shortage.
It snowed in nearly all the provinces of Argentina, an extremely rare event. It snowed even in the western part of the province of Buenos Aires and Southern Santa Fe, in cities at sea level.
Now I know why the sudden urgency to say 2010 is the warmest year ever before the year is over. Who needs this data added to the math?
Found by denialist Jason Price.
McGuyver==((an aside: why does it feel like you are soooo late to this conversation?)). I’ll make a few points:
There is no “proof” there is AGW. For the same reason there is no proof that smoking tobacco increases lung cancer. No control group. So —AS I SAID===there is AMBIGUITY allowing us all to project according to our personalities. YOU project your assumption onto a neutral statement. You do know what kind of “f*cktards” do that don’t you???
Probably the same kind of f*cktards ((another aside: I am not squeamish to using whole words, but I’ve been told avoiding some words help with certain filtering programs, so I do what I can to promote the spread of information without any government help at all)) that think/say/POST that they don’t need government.
Who could be so FUCKING STUPID to post something so objectively retarded and false?
And it seems the answer to all my questions is: people like Guyver. Quite the guy. (ver?)
28, Awake,
My apologies. For some reason I was thinking I was talking to Ah Yea. I had a senior moment. đ
#33 Guyver
“Those who believe in AGW are faith-based using no empirical evidence or proof of causality.”
This is absolute comedy gold.
34, Bobbo,
Who cares?
There is no âproofâ there is AGW.
So no causality yet you BELIEVE that mankind must be the root of this evil? Wow! Talk about ego.
YOU project your assumption onto a neutral statement. You do know what kind of âf*cktardsâ do that donât you???
I sit on the fence. If you want to prove something, provide the evidence necessary to come to a scientific conclusion.
It’s amazing to see a liberal get their panties in a bunch when asked to provide empirical evidence. You get too bent out of shape because you associate (it seems) your perception of how smart you think you are with your religion of AGW.
So there’s a ring of truth to what I’m saying and you’re upset that you resemble those remarks. LOL.
Awwwwwww. Isn’t that cute? Someone struck a nerve with you and you go off on the deep end. đ
36, FreddyBobs68k,
For the AGW crowd I’m sure it is. The reason why people like Bobbo groups skeptics with deniers is because as he has stated, there is no proof. Therefore he sees someone sitting on the fence as someone who opposes his viewpoint because he doesn’t want to be troubled by science or the scientific method.
Tragic isn’t it?
Guyver==stop projecting/creating false idols/victims for you to assail. I said AGW was AMBIGUOUS. How do you conclude what I think one way or the other in contradiction to what I do clearly say?
The water in this here deep end is below my ankles. If you would learn to stand up on your hind legs, you wouldn’t find common sense so deep.
39, Bobbo,
Yes you did say AGW is ambiguous. From your comments you imply that there does not seem to be any other kind of person other than one who believes in AGW or a denier. Which are you?
Have you considered that skeptics are a third type? I will ASSUME you are not a skeptic since you make no mention of them. So it SEEMS you believe skeptics as the same thing as a denier?
As for how you think, are you in favor of Cap & Trade, Carbon Credits, etc? These ideas are rooted in the belief that humans are the cause of the global warming.
That’s just ego talk. Your ego entered this thread before you clicked on it to see what people said. Stop being so self-absorbed. đ
Guyver==is English your second or third language?
My post #11 in total: “AGW vs Deniers. I wonder on what other psychological issues they vary?” /// Where do you get the implication that I think there are only two categories of people? I simply identify two groups that might be fun to compare. A more clear distinction than adding a 3-4-5th category?
Now, “seriously”: why do you have such a consistent proclivity to misrepresent clearly stated issues? If you do that on purpose, then that’s ok for trolling but is really a drag on any dialectic development. If you aren’t being this irrelevant on purpose, then you are just obtuse or have fallen into a VERY LAZY HABIT?
I prefer to think the last stated, but when that issue is raised 3-4 times in a row in one thread, I’d think you would pull yourself to the straight and narrow without being confronted over it?
Your skills are ample and will be rewarded if you focus just a little more. Give it a try. Your fellow “we don’t need no government liebertards” need a mentor.
Newbie here:
Claim 1: Climate is not weather
Question: Why is it important that last month was the hottest ever in the history of mankind? Is not the temperature a reflection of current weather conditions? Weather is global energy convection, while climate is the total energy available for convection. Can we measure or approximate either of those yet reliably?
Claim 2: Climate change causes more extreme weather
Question: How do you even prove this? Hurricane counts? Colder winters/hotter summers – again with the weather. And how do we know X degrees of climate change causes Y percentage more/less weather variability whatever that is. If there is such a formula, then there must be some ideal or equilibrius state that we should shoot for – what is it?
Claim 3: It’s not global warming but global climate change/destabilization/menopause.
Question: Are we warming or not? If we are, then why not call it global warming?
Fellow Deniers don’t forget that we too can do the simplistic ‘other extreme really causes this extreme’ game play.
Cold climate causes lesser water vapor (its called partial pressure), which leads to lesser cloud cover, hence the sun beating down on us.
Colder air in the atmosphere leads to lower cyclonic energies (differences in temp of fronts etc) that is rotation energies winds etc, and bigger and more stagnant highs, which again leads to clear skys.
All these sorts of arguments are so circular in nature.
Let us remind the warmers you brought this on with temperature rising data from the mid 20th century, along with some temp oscillatory history massaging. So you have to live with your methodologies.
I am proud to call myself a denier, as that is the label placed on us regardless of what we would call ourselves. Given the political posturing of the majority, its the only term.
I do not agree with the ‘denier of truth’ meaning, it is ‘denier of truth rammed down our gobs’ that I go with.
Hey, Welcome Nick===The degree of difficulty for your first dive was 8.0. Well Done.
I am no expert on GW, but just reading this blog after a while will provide answers if you care to read/follow a few links. People of course may read/understand different posts and links. My take:
1. One Hottest Month in record keeping history doesn’t mean a thing except it is consistent with the idea that average global temp is trending up. So, its a “fact” that can be misused by those having an interest in doing so.
2. More extreme weather is a direct result of more energy being available to power such events. Supposedly its in the climate models that NO ONE HERE has ever read but still have strong opinions on. Again, its consistent with the theory and any given event is misconstrued by advocates. Like any other issue, what is ideal is subject to disagreement. Most deniers don’t see any problem at all with 30% of the worlds population being 6 feet under water. Sounds weird, but thats their position.
3. You can find various trend lines. They are always off real experience but all are still trending up as is the average height of the sea level. Global Warming was changed because too many morons discount the theory if one particular place cools down even though the theory says that is exactly what will happen. Words/ideas are like that.
For all those who imaginatively posted the “weather is not climate” comment, my question is:
So why is it:
When it’s really hot (weather) all the AGW nut-bars scream how it’s global warming and we’re all gonna die!!
But if it is cold, the same nut-bars scream that “weather is not climate”!!
41, Bobbo,
From all past discussions concerning the general topic, you seem to be stuck with this fascination that there are only two groups of people. It seems you want to play polemics with a static view on this particular thread rather than being intellectually honest over your consistent use of two groups only?
Yup… sounds like you’re playing polemics with a static view of this thread only instead of a big picture view of what you’ve consistently been “representing”.
42, Nick,
Claim 4: The Earth is experiencing a global warming trend. If so, is the root cause humankind or are there natural forces in play that mankind is oblivious to due to our limited understanding of how things really work and the predisposition of others with a political agenda?
Good thing were all gonna die.
#24
NOAA are right see the graph of the arctic ice extent, during the month of june the curve went below the 1979-2000 average as this years melt was quicker than usual.
Note this rate changes all over the place year to year, it is a highly variable thing, literally a derivative of weather data collecting.
Man oh man are the warmist scientists in a panic. They are desperately picking and choosing hot-temp headlines.
Ha, ha. #43–cgp==yes indeed you certainly do make crap up and think you have a competing argument. Thats mostly whats wrong with most of your positions. Denying the science not with science but with made up BS. So alike you all are regardless of the issue being addressed.
Yes, probably some interesting psychological differences between AGW vs Deniers REGARDLESS of who turns out to be right or wrong.
Ha, ha. Whaddabunchadopes.
46, Chuck,
Very astute observation. My take on it is the classical Liberal double standard. đ
Oh by the way, why is there a 1979-2000 year average for sea ice extent?
Is this blatant statistical data manipulation or what?!
WHOA!!!!! McGuyvery pulls out all the stops. Ha, ha.
Seriously Guyver: keep track of the smartest people who post here. You will note they “tend” never to admit to error. Most when caught however will not keep digging their stupid hole even deeper. On balance, I have to think those who do so may be not quite as smart as initially supposed? OR, smart with even deeper personality “issues.” Ha. Ha.
1. “From all past discussions” huh? I subscribe to “every new post, every new thread, every new day” is a chance to become a better person. SO, even if the lie you spin were true, and it isn’t, you would still be wrong. Interesting how that works out? Stick to the issues as stated and your wild imagine in check. You’ll be better for it.
2. I’d bet money any fair “textual analysis” of the totality of my posting would show more nuance, more reference to alternatives, to most issues falling on a continuum, to the ying/yang of life to make your weak general statement a falsehood.
AS STATED: quit bullshitting yourself and pay closer attention to what is actually said. Admit when you are wrong, apologize without quibbling. You too may one day be accused of having an ego.
#50
just emulating your game play.
#54–cgp==weak and childish. Why do I even respond? Because you are so weak and – – – – -hmmmmm? Yes, why do I respond?
Nevermind.
Bobbo, I’ll put up the two statements again, your debating responsibility is to argue the points, not abuse. Where is the science wrong here as you have labeled BS.
Cold climate causes lesser water vapor (its called partial pressure), which leads to lesser cloud cover, hence the sun beating down on us.
Colder air in the atmosphere leads to lower cyclonic energies (differences in temp of fronts etc) that is rotation energies winds etc, and bigger and more stagnant highs, which again leads to clear skys.
cgp==I am a skeptic about AGW for reasons gone into at length on different threads. I criticize the arguments of both sides and get labeled appropriately back and forth as if I was in one camp or the other. In fact, see my post #11 above where I don’t even criticize or take a position and Guyver puts me into a camp and then makes up further erroneous positions to label me with.
1. The models take into account the feedback mechanism you suggest and thats is only a part of what makes the models so problematic.
What you have stated about colder climate is a neutral fact standing alone. It does not address whether or not climate is warming or getting colder and therefore does not act as a counter to AGW as you seem to think.
So, as usual, it doesn’t matter whether AGW or GW is true or not, YOUR ARGUMENT IS DEFICIENT/IRRELEVANT/DEFECTIVE on its face. And since I have pointed that fact out, you and McGuyver will now both think I support AGW because of it.
Silly Hoomans.
53, Bobbo,
Just because I can recollect that you sound like a broke record means I’m somehow “tracking” you? LOL.
Understood on you not admitting error. It just means you’re not intellectually honest.
Awwwww, what a nice flowery intro. đ As a skeptic I subscribe to the same ideals you’re promoting. However you tend to beat the same drum in spite of your.
So I’ll ask again so I can have a better understanding of where you lie:
As for how you think, are you in favor of Cap & Trade, Carbon Credits, etc? These ideas are rooted in the belief that humans are the cause of the global warming.
Yeah, I’m sure that all depends on your current definition of “is” is. But hey that’s mostly because you’ve just implied that you’re not intellectually honest.
So at least you’ve conceded AGW is AMBIGUOUS. That there is no causality established. I think you’re clear that correlation != causality.
Hopefully you don’t think that human kind’s contribution == causality since we don’t know how significant our contribution is to the total global system.
Admit to being wrong about what? That you’re a sensitive caring Liberal who gets their panties in a bunch when someone talks about your ego? đ
Guyver: “Oh, to see ourselves as other do.”
But Bobbo, you said I make up BS, then you say they are included in the feedback mechanisms?
My main point was to ridicule circular extremes causing counter extreme temperatures excuses.
Live by the warmists temperature collecting methodology. No liberal double dutch will be tolerated here.
#60–egp==yes, I got a bit loose there. Your post at #43: “that we too can do the
simplistic âother extreme really causes this extremeâ game play.” /// My understanding of this statement is that you are just going to “make up” the counter argument by following the form of the AGW argument which IS SUPPORTED by the IPCC model that takes into account the feedback and offsetting effects of water vapor, cloud cover, atmospheric temperatures affecting both and what not. The error in your argument is that these models do not support your cold air in a vacuum argument that actually goes no where. Its a half stated idea that is fully accounted for in the model. That doesn’t mean the model is correct, but at least it is not obviously wrong like your made up BS of a position.
There is no circular argument in the AGW position. I hope you see the difference.
57, Bobbo,
You a skeptic? Ha! Hey, I can understand if this is how you try to learn by knowing the opposition’s posture by playing devil’s advocate, but I’ve yet to see you take any neutral or skeptical stance. Maybe you’ve got a split personality? đ
You like playing polemics strictly adhered to a static view of time. You claim to play both sides, but it seems whenever you try to play a side, it’s the AGW side. I’ve observed you being in a camp. I have yet to observe you taking either a skeptical or anti-AGW stance.
Try and be a little intellectually honest instead of tap dancing your way out of somehow playing both sides.
It makes a HUGE difference if global warming is caused by humans. Liberal politicians are drooling at the prospect of taxing every function of Life the involves CO2 as a byproduct. Think this is an exaggeration? Seems like everything is caused by global warming: http://tinyurl.com/35fb7s
I’ve never questioned whether or not global warming is / isn’t happening. I’ve been very consistent about that. What I question is where is the proof that CO2 is causal instead of a consequence of global warming. If CO2 is causal, is humankind’s contribution significant?
Anyone coming to a conclusion before causality has been established is just pulling things out of their rear. There’s no reason to promote such dogma in order to enact legislation before causality has been established.
61, Bobbo,
Which is based off of assumptions that CO2 is causal. The IPCC model is self-serving and editorialized by non-scientists. Not to mention, it assumes all significant variables are accounted for.
If the IPCC models were accurate, we’d have had pretty good predictions of what’s to come for the coming years by now.
But instead, those models are nothing more than a crystal ball where some “psychic” tries to tell us our future with a LOT of gray.
I suppose if you lie enough, there might be some lies that might suggest some truth even though it’s all a sham.
Science is not about modeling what you think will happen based off of assumptions.