DONTEATUS Posted January 26, 2013 #26 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Im really confused ! WHere`s the HEck Babe Ruth in here ? Nah ! its stupid enough to read this tripe ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted January 26, 2013 #27 Share Posted January 26, 2013 greenland ice cores show co2 as 330-350 ppmv over the last 10,000 years. how can you explain that? Climate changes naturally. I'd like you to point to one time in Earth's history where there has been an increase of ~0.25 ppm/yr in atmospheric CO2. Do you honestly not see the link between increased industry and increased CO2 levels? Or do you think the increase at the time of the industrial revolution is purely coincidence? he was acussed of molesting the data...and he's from penn state uni (same as child abuser landusky), but mann sues just about everyone who criticises his work and instead pretends they are attacking him personally. He's recieved death threats and claims of fraud. That's pretty personal. It's also irrelevant to the science here so I'll leave that for another time. its just a simple rhetorical argument dressed up to look like science (using dodgy measurements too), "co2 causes warming, we emit co2 therefore we are the cause of global warming." the only real question that needs to be answered is "how much", and it is that which has not been measured, probably because its too small to be measurable. This just shows how little you understand about climate change. The issue isn't the amount we produce. It's that we are producing some without providing the necessary sinks. If you increase a source and (in our case) decrease sinks, you will get a net increase. That's simple logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainFall Posted January 26, 2013 #28 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I took care of the oil spill in the ocean and the trash. Why not global warming. If your a billionaire and dont know what to do with your money so you give it to "secret" organizations researching the fix for global warming.. At least try to GET A LIFE. and donate to the government organizations revolved around the fix for global warming.. I mean seriously.. AT LEAST.. Or you couldv donated to the Australian Carbon Tax.. Save them some money.. Jesus Christ yall fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuntrSThompsun Posted January 26, 2013 #29 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Rich *******s. Better things to burn your $ on, I hope bigfoot tears apart their pipelines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stardrive Posted January 26, 2013 #30 Share Posted January 26, 2013 This just shows how little you understand about climate change. The issue isn't the amount we produce. It's that we are producing some without providing the necessary sinks. If you increase a source and (in our case) decrease sinks, you will get a net increase. That's simple logic. Indeed it is simple logic. BUT, one has to take into concideration how far up into the atmosphere the co2 generated by our activities goes. What goes up must come down. A volcano can alter the climate because of how high into the atmosphere it can push the various gasses it releases. The types of gasses released, and how high into the atmosphere they go, have differing effects on climate. Some combinations make it warmer, some make it colder. At least that's my understanding of it. I wish it was black and white, but there are many factors to take into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technocrat Posted January 26, 2013 #31 Share Posted January 26, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted January 26, 2013 #32 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Indeed it is simple logic. BUT, one has to take into concideration how far up into the atmosphere the co2 generated by our activities goes. What goes up must come down. A volcano can alter the climate because of how high into the atmosphere it can push the various gasses it releases. The types of gasses released, and how high into the atmosphere they go, have differing effects on climate. Some combinations make it warmer, some make it colder. At least that's my understanding of it. I wish it was black and white, but there are many factors to take into account. You're right insofar as the layer gasses reach determine their effect. However, an increase in CO2 in any layer will have an effect (be it increase or decrease). The CO2 we produce is mostly added to the atmosphere at ground level so it seems reasonable to assume it all reaches the same height. NB: This is just reasoning on my part. Don't know if anyone's done a study on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad hoc Posted January 27, 2013 #33 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Hmm. Not my subject of interest, but I've heard it said by CS's that regardless of how you interpret the current data, with the co2 we're producing there isn't any plausible scenario in which significant global warming won't happen. If the basic physics of that is true, then it doesn't seem like a great idea to just declare that nothing's been empirically proven so therefore industry can just go back to not worrying about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolguy Posted January 27, 2013 #34 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Global warming is not man made. The earth goes in warm and cold cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted January 27, 2013 #35 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Climate changes naturally. I'd like you to point to one time in Earth's history where there has been an increase of ~0.25 ppm/yr in atmospheric CO2.I'd like you to point to "a time in earth's history" where co2 was actually measured that accurately.greenland ice cores show 330-350ppm over the last 10,000 years, antarctic ice cores show 270ppm co2. why do they differ so much and why should we assume ice cores as a good proxy for co2? as already explained, leaf stomata respond quickly to changes in atmospheric co2, they correlate very well with the actual measurements over the last 50 years, so seem like a good proxy for co2 yet limited fossil records show co2 much higher and much more variable than ice cores show. warming causes co2 to increase, this is basic physics, the temperature of water is inversely proportional to solubility of co2, the warmer it gets the more co2 is released from the oceans. so why does the ice core show co2 as flat during the medieval warm period? Do you honestly not see the link between increased industry and increased CO2 levels? Or do you think the increase at the time of the industrial revolution is purely coincidence?nature emits and absorbs more co2 than man. the warmer it gets the more co2 is released from the oceans, the earth is 71% water. how much co2 do termites produce compared to man? what was the termite population during the litle ice age? you have to measure these things rather than just produce a rhetorical argument wrapped in incredulity.He's recieved death threats and claims of fraud. That's pretty personal. It's also irrelevant to the science here so I'll leave that for another time.death threats are illegal. why was no one arrested? how was the threat made, untraceable carrier pigeon? the story in the newspapers about climate scientists receiving death threats last year turned out to be made up nonsense, maybe that's what you are referring to. what do you suppose "use mike (mann)'s nature trick to hide the decline" was all about? what is a scientist doing "hiding" data?This just shows how little you understand about climate change. The issue isn't the amount we produce. It's that we are producing some without providing the necessary sinks. If you increase a source and (in our case) decrease sinks, you will get a net increase. That's simple logic.if i throw a cigarette over the side of a boat i will heat the oceans, that's simple logic too. should we crap ourselves that smokers might be boiling the oceans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted January 27, 2013 #36 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) <p> there has been NO global warming for sixteen years... That claim's a prime example of how to manipulate statistics to get the answer you want. Here's the story: [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk[/media] Edited January 27, 2013 by flyingswan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted January 27, 2013 #37 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) <p> That claim's a prime example of how to manipulate statistics to get the answer you want. Here's the story: that's a prime example of argument from ignorance. they take away what they "believe is natural variation, what's left must be due to humans".the climate modelers that use their models to frighten children and the gullible are on record stating that 15 years or more of no warming would be enough to discredit their models and how they think co2 affects climate. there has been no global warming for 16 years during which time man has increased co2 emissions by 30%....and why would anyone trust GISS dataset adjustments. it changes every year with every change producing a steeper graph. http://stevengoddard...2c-per-century/ http://stevengoddard...a-and-giss-are/ http://stevengoddard...ss-smoking-gun/ http://stevengoddard...e-past-at-giss/ http://stevengoddard...500&h=355&h=355 http://stevengoddard...g-at-ushcngiss/ this is NOT the temperature graph: it is a graph of the adjustments to the raw data. Edited January 27, 2013 by Little Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted January 27, 2013 #38 Share Posted January 27, 2013 This thread could easily be called billionaires secretly fund attack on humanity and the climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted January 27, 2013 #39 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) This thread could easily be called billionaires secretly fund attack on humanity and the climate. why should we care where funding comes from anyway?government climate scienitsts have swallowed 100 billion dollars with their research compared to "millions" for the skeptical side. governments have a vested interest in global warming since it will generate massive revenues for them. yet the title of this thread implies that david is the goliath. ...furthermore, if the funding is secret, then how could that possibly influence the science? Edited January 27, 2013 by Little Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted January 27, 2013 #40 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Not really interested in who what or why. Just in stopping the abuses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted January 27, 2013 #41 Share Posted January 27, 2013 ...there has been no global warming for 16 years... The trick to get that "fact" depends on picking 16 years rather than 15 or 17. 16 years ago was a year with a big El Nino temperature peak. The year before and the year after didn't have such a factor, so if you measure from either of those your "no increase" claim evaporates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted January 28, 2013 #42 Share Posted January 28, 2013 It going to Get Hotter ! Look at Mars for our Future ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted January 28, 2013 #43 Share Posted January 28, 2013 there is no empirical evidence that man is causing global warming - just ask, and you will not receive. it was always about politics and belief. ALL Empirical data points the finger at human involvement in both Global Warming and Climate Change. The Jury is IN and the verdict is now irrefutable.Mankind has to change its ways or the suffering will be unstoppable. It is the AGW deniers that are at the fringe of science, and inacapable of absorbing what the data proves. Anybody heard from Lord Monckton recently? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopmo Posted January 28, 2013 #44 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Any donation of funds to either side would assist in finding out the plain and simple fact and either side could find a way to stop or slow the effects. At any rate if they can do either to save their wallets or "benefit mankind" they'll be assisting the world in doing so. I don't understand why all the blowout arguments between people. The only reason I'm a skeptic is because I'm already paying a carbon tax which has been packaged by the government the same way the GST (Goods & Services Tax) was packaged to the country. That and I have seen/read quite alot about england tempretures in the medievil ages being hotter than what most "hot countries" are today and they were running around in metal suits. My personal beliefs are todays society needs to grab a spoon (if they do not own a spoon a ladel is perfectly acceptable) and eat a spoonful of cement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-M7 Posted February 1, 2013 #45 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Why am I not surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 1, 2013 #46 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) U.N.: World temperatures maintain the heat of global warming DURBAN, South Africa – World temperatures keep rising, and are heading for a threshold that could lead to irreversible changes of the Earth, the United Nations weather office said Tuesday. 2011 is tied for the 10th-hottest year since records began in 1850, the office said in its annual assessment of average global temperatures. Arctic sea ice has also shrunk to record-low volumes this year, it said. The 13 hottest years on the books all have occurred in the last 15 years. "The science is solid and proves unequivocally that the world is warming," said R.D.J. Lengoasa, deputy director of the World Meteorological Organization, and human activity is a significant contributor. ]http://usatoday30.us...rban/51464574/1 Edited February 1, 2013 by skyeagle409 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overpopulation Posted February 1, 2013 #47 Share Posted February 1, 2013 This sickens me. These billionaires care more about there goddamn money then the future of our planet. Great example of why trickle down economics wont work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now