Climate Name Change

[w1z4rd]

I really hope this happens. The people that are playing an active role in science denialism should have their names go down in history. The consequences of their actions need to be immortalized so hopefully future generations can learn from the mistakes made in this generation.

[video=youtube;efAUCG9oTb8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=efAUCG9oTb8[/video]

Sign the petition at: http://climatenamechange.org/

 

[Bully.Defender]

But climate change is a part of Earths history, its got nothing to do with politicians.

 

[w1z4rd]

But climate change is a part of Earths history, its got nothing to do with politicians.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so humans can't be the cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research shows this is not the case.

It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice.

These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature.

Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we've learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past.

In summary the past reveals our climate is highly sensitive to small changes in heat.

What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional "forcing" is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.

The Earth's climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.

Please check anything you want to say here first: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

All of lies are dealt with. The one you mention is number 1 on that list.

 

[STS]

I really hope this happens. The people that are playing an active role in science denialism should have their names go down in history. The consequences of their actions need to be immortalized so hopefully future generations can learn from the mistakes made in this generation.

Sign the petition at: http://climatenamechange.org/

instead of bullying people into believing what you do by threatening to name storms after them, why don't people focus on making the world a better place for those that DO agree with you?

oh look, another petition, Ghoti and i had this argument last time and he blocked me because i disagreed that mailing a piece of paper to someone with 10 000 scribbles on it is going to save the planet.

edit: it is not climate change i have an issue with, i very much believe in it, just not to the fanatical pace of some other people. give up religion and now they want to **** down everybody else's neck and make it their problem too

 

[Bar0n]

But climate change is a part of Earths history, its got nothing to do with politicians.

Climate change is happening, and we may have a part in it, but I refuse to believe we are solely responsible for it.

The CO2 produced in nature by animals and sea creatures massively outweighs our own. Humans produce about 30 gigatons (slightly less I think) of CO2 per year while the rest of nature produces between 700 and 800 gigatons per year.

Now normally somebody would accuse humans of "upsetting the balance". I do not see how a 3-5% (approx., assuming humans produce 30Gt and nature 750Gt, plus allowing for a 700-800Gt window) increase could cause runaway climate change. Animal populations are growing as rapidly as our own (of course some do go extinct or decline in numbers), and we're approaching a point where the earth cannot sustain this much life.

You really want to fix climate change? Don't even make halving our CO2 emissions your goal, because it won't help. We contribute a tiny percentage of CO2. Kill off a few useless species of animals or humans. The best solution, in our infinite universe, is simply to start moving to other planets when it becomes viable.

EDIT: Actually, here's a better idea: http://theenergycollective.com/andr...d-global-warming-removing-co2-atmosphere-will

 

[OrbitalDawn]

instead of bullying people into believing what you do by threatening to name storms after them, why don't people focus on making the world a better place for those that DO agree with you?

Because these retards are holding the whole world back by denying reality. It's not just some random hicks in bumfsckville, Alabama. If Congressmen in the States refuse to even acknowledge reality then we've got a problem on a global scale.

Climate change is happening, and we may have a part in it, but I refuse to believe we are solely responsible for it.

The CO2 produced in nature by animals and sea creatures massively outweighs our own. Humans produce about 30 gigatons (slightly less I think) of CO2 per year while the rest of nature produces between 700 and 800 gigatons per year.

Now normally somebody would accuse humans of "upsetting the balance". I do not see how a 3-5% (approx., assuming humans produce 30Gt and nature 750Gt, plus allowing for a 700-800Gt window) increase could cause runaway climate change. Animal populations are growing as rapidly as our own (of course some do go extinct or decline in numbers), and we're approaching a point where the earth cannot sustain this much life.

You really want to fix climate change? Don't even make halving our CO2 emissions your goal, because it won't help. We contribute a tiny percentage of CO2. Kill off a few useless species of animals or humans. The best solution, in our infinite universe, is simply to start moving to other planets when it becomes viable.

EDIT: Actually, here's a better idea: http://theenergycollective.com/andr...d-global-warming-removing-co2-atmosphere-will

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Do you count cow farts as part of that emissions? Because that's also actually humans inflating their numbers for our use.

 

[w1z4rd]

Because these retards are holding the whole world back by denying reality. It's not just some random hicks in bumfsckville, Alabama. If Congressmen in the States refuse to even acknowledge reality then we've got a problem on a global scale.

These political science denialists should be put on trial for crimes against humanity.

These greed will have global impact for centuries to come

 

[w1z4rd]

Climate change is happening, and we may have a part in it, but I refuse to believe we are solely responsible for it.

The CO2 produced in nature by animals and sea creatures massively outweighs our own. Humans produce about 30 gigatons (slightly less I think) of CO2 per year while the rest of nature produces between 700 and 800 gigatons per year.

Now normally somebody would accuse humans of "upsetting the balance". I do not see how a 3-5% (approx., assuming humans produce 30Gt and nature 750Gt, plus allowing for a 700-800Gt window) increase could cause runaway climate change. Animal populations are growing as rapidly as our own (of course some do go extinct or decline in numbers), and we're approaching a point where the earth cannot sustain this much life.

You really want to fix climate change? Don't even make halving our CO2 emissions your goal, because it won't help. We contribute a tiny percentage of CO2. Kill off a few useless species of animals or humans. The best solution, in our infinite universe, is simply to start moving to other planets when it becomes viable.

EDIT: Actually, here's a better idea: http://theenergycollective.com/andr...d-global-warming-removing-co2-atmosphere-will

Not sure why you dont read the link I gave.... its like you intentionally dont wanna know the truth. Everything you mention.... is there.... in detail.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm (Its not humans)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm (Its a natural cycle)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm (Its volcanoes)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm (CO2 is coming from the ocean)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-will-make-little-difference.htm (CO2 limits will make little difference)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm ("Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate")
http://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm ("Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup")
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-is-natural-not-human-caused.htm (CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused")

 

[STS]

Because these retards are holding the whole world back by denying reality. It's not just some random hicks in bumfsckville, Alabama. If Congressmen in the States refuse to even acknowledge reality then we've got a problem on a global scale.

so we bully them?

mocking someone and degrading someone is not making a point.

 

[Bar0n]

Not sure why you dont read the link I gave.... its like you intentionally dont wanna know the truth. Everything you mention.... is there.... in detail.

I read it. I quite liked the comments on http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

I do think some of the arguments sound a bit desperate, but I'm not denying climate change. Looking at the numbers, I simply don't think our impact is as big as some people would have us believe.

 

[Unhappy1]

I read it. I quite liked the comments on http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

I do think some of the arguments sound a bit desperate, but I'm not denying climate change. Looking at the numbers, I simply don't think our impact is as big as some people would have us believe.

You're just basing this all on subjective feelings, thats not how science works.

 

[w1z4rd]

I read it. I quite liked the comments on http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

I do think some of the arguments sound a bit desperate, but I'm not denying climate change. Looking at the numbers, I simply don't think our impact is as big as some people would have us believe.

Please break down an argument that sounds desperate so we can break it apart and test it. Surely you wanna know the truth?

This is where I am different from a lot of the people I debate. I have no problem been corrected. In fact, I embrace it. If the balance of evidence changes my view I am happier for it, because it means I am correcting something wrong that I once thought was true. I think even today I have had my view changed on the balance of evidence (in the lesbian till slip thread).

I much prefer been corrected than to carry on believing a convenient lie. What I dont get is why everyone is not like this.

So paste the bit that you think is false and lets break it apart and test it. If its wrong I want to know, and if its right, surely you want to know?

 

[STS]

Bar0n, i wouldn't even waste my time

 

[Fulcrum29]

In my opinion this will wreck the naming system and make it harder to recognise. On another note, the senator-based plan was already proposed, although this included everyone and not only those who denial the science. Also the current naming system is active since 1979 and started in 1945 when the newly National Weather Bureau was launched.

The names also rotate every 6 years, it is a known cycle. Katrina was devastating in 2005 and what about Andrew in 1992 which is now retired names due to the loss and economic impact.

Everyone who studied Civil Engineering will know that there is a 1 x 100 year (largest) and a 2 x 50 year (larger) impact, a known cycle which is keeping track with history. Flood zones (A / AE, A1-A30 / AH / AO / AR / A99 / V / VE, V1-V30 / B, X (shaded) / C, X (unshaded) / D) were established way back in history and is also keeping track with history. Anyone can go Google and read it up more in depth, including the naming cycle.

This is a doomed to FAIL campaign. The campaign in my opinion is making it too DIFFICULT.

 

[Bar0n]

You're just basing this all on subjective feelings, thats not how science works.

I'm not. I am very passionate about science and regard myself as a scientist (albeit it not in the field of climatology, but I have studied courses on dynamical systems and mathematical modelling and understand how extremely complex the climate system is and how inaccurate our current models are). I accept that global warming is occurring. I accept that humans contribute to it. I am skeptical about the level of our impact and don't believe we are solely to blame.

I am also skeptical about the projections for the next few years. In a dynamical system as complex as the weather/climate system, it's common to wrongly predict tomorrow's weather or rainfall. Extrapolating this system over a few decades might give a possible indication as to the future scenario, but is not necessarily accurate. Interpolating (matching already available data points) is very easy. Extrapolating (predicting) is most certainly not.

This section clarifies my ideas on climate change better:

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections

Perhaps I am too opinionated on the subject (its accuracy, not its existence), but I believe there is reason to question some of the current assessments that people so regularly quote and refer to.

 

[Bar0n]

Bar0n, i wouldn't even waste my time

I've said what I wanted to say.

 

[w1z4rd]

I've said what I wanted to say.

Yeah, you have made it obvious you dont wanna test if you are right and wrong Thats sad. Thats what creationists do

 

[STS]

Yeah, you have made it obvious you dont wanna test if you are right and wrong Thats sad. Thats what creationists do

you can't argue with fanatics either, where anyone with a question or varying opinion is stupid or evil

 

[bot]

In my opinion this will wreck the naming system and make it harder to recognise. On another note, the senator-based plan was already proposed, although this included everyone and not only those who denial the science. Also the current naming system is active since 1979 and started in 1945 when the newly National Weather Bureau was launched.

The names also rotate every 6 years, it is a known cycle. Katrina was devastating in 2005 and what about Andrew in 1992 which is now retired names due to the loss and economic impact.

Everyone who studied Civil Engineering will know that there is a 1 x 100 year (largest) and a 2 x 50 year (larger) impact, a known cycle which is keeping track with history. Flood zones (A / AE, A1-A30 / AH / AO / AR / A99 / V / VE, V1-V30 / B, X (shaded) / C, X (unshaded) / D) were established way back in history and is also keeping track with history. Anyone can go Google and read it up more in depth, including the naming cycle.

This is a doomed to FAIL campaign. The campaign in my opinion is making it too DIFFICULT.

I support this view.

You have a pretty low IQ not to be able to see that humans are the major cause of co2 emissions but changing the names to that of the deniers will add extra confusion and is not necessary.

 

[STS]

I support this view.

You have a pretty low IQ not to be able to see that humans are the major cause of co2 emissions but changing the names to that of the deniers will add extra confusion and is not necessary.

welcome back.