Amazing when people let their blind hatred for a demographic (liberals) cloud their judgment. Next thing you know they are going to tell us the world is flat and dinosaurs came after humans..oh wait..
-
Comment -
So, you are saying that because we question a theory which does not have proper evidence to support it, that means that we deny a fact which is easily proven by overwhelming evidence? That is what you are saying?Originally posted by Duff85
Crackhead.Comment -
Curious:Originally posted by curious
Right! Other than the fact that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass, the Arctic Sea ice has decreased over the last two decades, the global sea level has risen 17 centimeters in the last 100 years, the mean global temperature and ocean temperature has risen in the last 4 decades, the carbon dioxide content has increased dramatically and the ocean acidity has risen by 30 percent since the 18th century. Other than these facts, yeah you're right! There is absolutely no supporting evidence for human-induced climate change. It must be nice living in your fantasy world where you see everything through your right-wing ideology. Tax cuts will pay for themselves! Global warming is a hoax cooked up by the liberal media to scare society! Obama is a Kenyan socialist who wants to take your Bible and your gun! Evolution is another hoax created by Lucifer to test our faith! But what am I thinking?! Facts never get in the way of a good conservative! God your are a brilliant man, curious.
Crackhead.Comment -
What the global warming or climate change pundits always ignore is that people who know what they are talking about say that the Earth's climate does change, and the change is sometimes severe because of a myriad of facts that have nothing to do with CO2. I'm not arguing that the Earth's climate changes, I am saying that CO2 is not the culprit.Originally posted by Yossarian
The thing that really gets me, is that if someone believes that CO2 is the culprit, there is a very simple solution for this. Plant lots of large, green plants that require lots of CO2. Trees, for example. Let's see, at one swoop you put large numbers of people back to work, you create a harvestable crop, and you add a recycling center for the CO2 (because this is SBR I have to explain that trees take in CO2 and produce Oxygen).
But, the global warming crowd doesn't care about finding solutions, they want power, so they are never going to suggest doing this.Comment -
How much has the carbon dioxide levels increased from 5,000-years ago to the industrial age?Comment -
You are making a false assumption. You are assuming that the CO2 levels impact the Earth's climate. That is not a true assumption.Originally posted by jbrent95
And you cannot go back 5,000 years. 5,000 years means nothing when looking at the Earth's climate.
At least you are not doing what many of the global warming pundits do and looking at only the last 100 years. I'll give you that.Comment -
CO2 is not the culprit - but it is a contributing factor, so is methane. the warming is increasing at an astonishing rate - the fastst in known history...
beachfront land any1?Comment -
Not it isn't. Why do you say such nonsense?Originally posted by subsComment -
Blaming CO2 for global warming is like blaming wet streets for rain. Global warming causes an increase in CO2, not the other way around.
Throughout history, warmer climates have been associated with human civilization thriving. Colder climates bring death and disease. Glaciers melt, other glaciers form. Some species disappear, new species originate.
Every thing's fine here, move along.Comment -
this is y here
also on balance i would say the majority of scientists agree. may i ask y u do not?
is it because of the same people that told u that covering the surface of the planet with PV would not be enough to power the world?
sorry prolly in bad taste but couldn't really resist it
Comment -
You are wrong on several points.Originally posted by substhis is y here
also on balance i would say the majority of scientists agree. may i ask y u do not?
is it because of the same people that told u that covering the surface of the planet with PV would not be enough to power the world?
sorry prolly in bad taste but couldn't really resist it
The majority of scientists do not agree that CO2 is a leading cause of atmospheric warming. The science is very clear on this. CO2 lags atmospheric temperature, it does not lead it. Please site the source that shows the majority of scientists agreeing and give a statement that shows what they are agreeing to.
No one told me how PV arrays work, I calculated that myself. I know how they work. The numbers are clear. If you cover all areas that have decent solar gain with PV arrays you still do not come close to supplying the amount of electricity that people consume. Even if you cover the entire surface area of the planet you do not have enough electricity. Not nearly enough. You have to take into account moving the electricity to the areas where it is consumed and the net loss given the technologies that are currently being used is very high. Also the current PV technology is very inefficient. But, if you use a 100% factor for the conversion of sunlight into electricity the amount of electricity created is still too small. I told you to calculate this number for yourself and you said that you were too good to do that. Fine. I did calculate the number myself.
Where do you get this notion that I get all my information from others? I look at the source materials and calculate things myself. I don't trust most "experts".
Since you say that I got my information from "others" then quote them. If you cannot provide a source then you are just making up shit.
Yes, the vast majority of your posts are in bad taste and nonsense, or they are out and out lies, you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over without any backing to prove your points. You are wasting everyone's time. And you make up lies to accuse people who do not agree with your nonsense.
You stated that PV panels can replace coal, natural gas, nuclear powered, and oil fired electricity. I said that you are dead wrong. It should be simple for you to prove your point. Just give the numbers. What is the area of coverage for the PV panels that you have in mind and how much electricity do they produce, how far does the electricity have to be transported and how much electricity is lost in the transport. If you don't know these numbers then you are just guessing to say that PV is the answer. I told you that you are dead wrong and you did not even try to find the numbers. So, you are wasting everyone's time.
You want me to give you the numbers. But, if you are so sure you should not need my numbers, you should have them. If you don't have them then you are just giving wild guesses, which is okay, but be honest about it and say that is what you are doing.Comment -
You denying something that has and is clearly happening is just as illogical as those that deny the holocaust. Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.Originally posted by curiousComment -
When its cold outside like it is now.....I always wonder what became of that "global warming" everyone was carrying on about.....
I had such high hopes for all that!!
Comment -
we are all slowly melting awayComment -
Originally posted by opie1988When its cold outside like it is now.....I always wonder what became of that "global warming" everyone was carrying on about.....
I had such high hopes for all that!!
Do you even know the difference between global climate and regional weather?Comment -
This is the thread that will never die.Comment -
+100Originally posted by Dunder
Comment -
And just because you don't know what you are talking about does not mean that you were not killed in the holocaust.Originally posted by Duff85
What I am objecting to is the mantra from the global warming idiots, "mankind is directly responsible for a huge increase in global temperatures which will result in catastrophic disasters if the United States is not brought back to a pre-industrial age society".
No one can deny that the Earth's temperature goes up and down over periods that coincide with several factors having to do with the Earth, the Sun, Sirius B, and other factors.
There are two issues under debate right now that concern human activity being responsible for drastic temperature changes and that concern drastic temperature changes that are predicted by the nutjobs over the next century.
I have made my position on these two issues quite clear. I have also stated that I believe that the Earth undergoes climate change but this is natural and mankind can do nothing about it.
The nutjobs have not and cannot prove that CO2 levels are the cause of yet to come climatic disasters as they are claiming in their attempt to destroy the economy of the United States.Comment -
You stating that something which is not happening is clearly happening is just as illogical as you those who deny the holocaust. Just because you want to believe it does not mean that it is happening.Originally posted by Duff85Comment -
Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?
Roy Spencer, Ph. D.
climatologist, author, former NASA scientist
“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.
The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.
Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.
(Emphasis added)Comment -
100 years means nothing, absolutely nothing in Earth's climate.Comment -
I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss
“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.
"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”
...
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."
Hansen has called for energy industry executives to be jailed for dissenting from the man-made warming hypothesis.
(Emphasis added)Comment -
I think Hansen should be jailed for being a retard.Originally posted by losturmarblesComment -
No smoking hot spot (July 18, 2008)
...
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
...
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
...
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
...
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.Comment -
Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth
Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a "consensus" exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2's effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.Professor George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk of the University of Southern California, and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases."The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere," states the preamble to the paper.The full study, which appears in the Energy Sources journal, is sure to cause ire amongst climate cult adherants.No global warming has been observed for the past 10 years as temperatures have gradually declined and studies indicate that there will be no further warming for the next 10 years.In a related development, the peer-reviewed Physics and Society journal has published evidence proving that the UN IPCC's 2007 climate summary "overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%."According to the paper, "Computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007."The paper also outlines evidence to confirm that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed, a factor attributed to the Sun having been more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.The paper concludes, "CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100."
Comment -
Link Not Working - Removed-)Comment -
CURIOUS POST 426
: ) guess u missed it.... i thought u were ignoring it which is y i referenced it again. back we go to calling names
i did not take into account the power loss from moving the electricity. prolly somewhere between ur calculations and mine is the real answer.Comment -
Link Not Working - Removed-)Comment -
curious did u really say that:
here is wiki:
Statements by concurring organizations
[edit]Academies of Science
[edit]Joint science academies' statements
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:
of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.Comment -
ok ok manComment -
wtf is that subsComment -
You don't have any calculations and my calculations are precise.Originally posted by subsCURIOUS POST 426
: ) guess u missed it.... i thought u were ignoring it which is y i referenced it again. back we go to calling names
i did not take into account the power loss from moving the electricity. prolly somewhere between ur calculations and mine is the real answer.
You claimed several times that my statement about PV arrays was preposterous. Now you are claiming that you have calculations. I think that you are a little kid. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.Comment -
It will after we win the 2012 elections and we track down all of these DemoCong operatives and execute them.Originally posted by TsongaComment -
please look at post 426... which is where my calculations are. now if u could post urs then we could discuss them. or just throw names around - up to u man.
BTW that was a list of scientific organisations who concur. according to wiki
too long to read hugh?
as there are some smart people here may i ask ur opinion please. if u were to be making new push charts for the NBA how far back would u go? 5 or 10 or 20 years?
many thanks for ur input. it is well valued. i may do all 3 and compare my results, but it would be interessting to hear ur thoughts. thanksComment -
subs, be a man and delete that shit.
It's bad enough you and most of the board parrot talking heads from the government's “Ministry of Truth” (i.e. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX), but now you want to act like a child.
Unreal.Comment
