What will it take, for YOU to believe in global warming?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It's Monday, september 26th, (yes, september TWENTY SIXTH) and it's still in the triple digits, every day, for extended periods of time. Austin hit record highs BEFORE the 'cane started to affect us. Don't give me any of that "hurricane pushed warmer weather to us" bull shit, it's been this hot non stop since like May..

What is it going to take for people to believe Global Warming does exist?

Will people like joechhehehejaaam still insist global warming is a farse when fall and spring are non-existent here in Texas, and Winter lasts 2 months?
What will it take for you to finally believe in it? What will you do once you believe it exists?

[Kori Ellis]

What will it take, for YOU to believe in global warming?

For Global Warming Threads to stop appearing The Club.

:)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I didn't put a political spin on it, unless you count the jochehehchejaam comment, so i figure its a general discussion question

[Kori Ellis]

It's fine .. I was just joking.

[MannyIsGod]

And last Christmas it fucking snowed in South Texas!

What is it going to take for people to realize that Global Warming can't be proven or disproven based on any 1, 2, or even 3 given days!

[mookie2001]

every scientist on the face of the earth agree

[MannyIsGod]

every scientist on the face of the earth agree
On what exactly? Climate Change? You're out of your fucking mind.

[mookie2001]

yeah it would never happen
and some people will never admit the earth is heating up

[Cant_Be_Faded]

And last Christmas it fucking snowed in South Texas!

What is it going to take for people to realize that Global Warming can't be proven or disproven based on any 1, 2, or even 3 given days!


I thought one of the effects of global warming was a shorter, more intense winter

and i was basing it on my personal experience of living in texas my whole life, knowing that 3 summers ago was the hottest summer, until 2 summers ago, until last summer, until this summer

this summer is lasting longer as well

[SpursWoman]

What will it take, for YOU to believe in global warming?



Scientific proof that it's more than just normal cycles of the Earth. Unfortunately, that will probably take several hundred years minimum to achieve....I'm not expecting to see the conclusion.

:fro

[MannyIsGod]

The effects of Global Warming are certainly not present in day to day tempature highs and lows.

It has been hot the past few days, and its easily explained in a non global warming fashion. Subsidence from Rita plus a downsloping wind and you get really hot temps.

Climate Change effects are not present yet. The studies that are taking place all agre e warming, but differ on the reasons why and the rate. What they do agree on as well is that big noticable changes will not happen until closer to the end of this century.

So, don't use a hot September day to try to prove it because it just doesn't add up.

[Clandestino]

i think it is because of all the energy that is necessary for the production of tin foil for all the hats dan and his buddies are making..

[Marklar MM]

i think it is because of all the energy that is necessary for the production of tin foil for all the hats dan and his buddies are making..

The aliens are coming.

[MiNuS]

last Christmas south Texas had about 3 inches of snow. If it repeats then hell is freezing!

[SpursWoman]

Well, whatever the hell the reason it's so hot...I'll just be damn happy when it stops to not be getting anymore $400 CPS bills. For 2 months, anyway. :flipoff :cuss :lol

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Okay, so then you disagree that CO2 levels are rising, or you disagree that the earth is uncapable of keeping rising CO2 in check?

You disagree that an exploding car using population in China and India will have any effects on CO2 levels?

You think that HOLES in the ozone layer, that very level of atmosphere that has kept the majority of humans cancer free for millenia, are appearing now just because of a normal earth cycle?

Someone said scientific proof....read any case study or paper published in any journal of conservation biology...theres shitloads of evidence suggesting that humans are effecting every single available habitat and ecosystem on this entire planet. Pristine habitats are nonexistent in today's world. Think about that one for a second.

Yet we're incapable of altering the atmosphere?

[ObiwanGinobili]

What will it take, for YOU to believe in global warming?

i didn't know that global warming was somekinda "belief".. kike somethign that requires "faith".
I've always just accepted the fact of it's exisitance.
I'm even more convinced on the 22nd of every month when I sit in a dark room crying over my CPS bill.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

BTW, i never disagree with anyone who says its a normal cycle we're going through. But what I find ridiculous is when those people think what we are doing will have no effect on these cycles, like altering them, shifting them.

[MannyIsGod]

You're moving from global warming to the entire impact of humans on the environment. Which do you want to discuss?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I feel they're tied together. I think humans impact is either causing or accelerating the global warming process.

[JoeChalupa]

It doesn't take a scientist to realize...err, never mind.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, i never disagree with anyone who says its a normal cycle we're going through. But what I find ridiculous is when those people think what we are doing will have no effect on these cycles, like altering them, shifting them.
Why do you disagree?

I'm not saying I don't think we can alter the eart, but I'm looking for your reasonsing behind your convictions.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Well we have proof CO2 has skyrocketed like no other. We also have a correlation of increasing mean temperature and rising CO2 levels for about a 50 year period. We know car use and other emissions contirbute to CO2. We know that there is one fourth of the human population in an area of the world that is quickly reaching an American standard of life. From studies of Venus, and closed system studies, we know CO2 can cause a greenhouse effect. We know the polar Ice Caps have been steadily decreasing since the 70's. Thats all i can think of at the moment

[MannyIsGod]

I feel they're tied together. I think humans impact is either causing or accelerating the global warming process.
The point being a hole in the ozone layer has little to no relevance when debating global warming.

Show me how it supports/disproves something having to do with climate change.

[MannyIsGod]

Well we have proof CO2 has skyrocketed like no other. We know car use and other emissions contirbute to CO2. We know that there is one fourth of the human population in an area of the world that is quickly reaching an American standard of life. From studies of Venus, and closed system studies, we know CO2 can cause a greenhouse effect. We know the polar Ice Caps have been steadily decreasing since the 70's. Thats all i can think of at the moment
Is the earth a closed system?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Is the earth a closed system?


Venus isn't

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The point being a hole in the ozone layer has little to no relevance when debating global warming.

Show me how it supports/disproves something having to do with climate change.

I just spit that out there once. I said more about the CO2 levels. And those easily support climate change theories

I mentinoed holes in the ozone, and human impact in general, to get people to realize that we have totally impacted every square inch of land on this entire planet....why is it so far fetched for us to alter the atmosphere, or at least some levels of it?

[timvp]

I don't want to believe it's true because the people who believe are damn annoying about it. If it's too hot, they point to global warming. If it's too cold, they point to global warming. Same ish for too much or too little rain. Whatever happens with the weather, they are quick to point to global warming.

Just STFU and go pray for an ice age so humans can globally warm the earth and cause it to melt again.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

touchy touchy

[MannyIsGod]

Venus isn't
Well, Venus has a different chemical compisition than the earth and happens to be a whole hell of a lot closer to the sun.

[SWC Bonfire]

Is the climate changing? You bet. Does all the pavement and non-permeable cover have anything to do with it? You bet.

But never underestimate the ability of Mother Nature to correct herself. To think that humans are capable of completely altering the patterns and mechanisms of nature is pretty naive.

[timvp]

http://www.cenapred.unam.mx/popo/2000/dic/p1213006.jpg

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Well, Venus has a different chemical compisition than the earth and happens to be a whole hell of a lot closer to the sun.


If you compare distances from the sun and planet temperatures, the distance does not explain the higher temperature of venus alone, something else is contributing to its high temp's.

[MannyIsGod]

Here's the deal CBF...

I think Climate Change is undergoing. The tempature is rising, the oceans show far more CO2 than they should have (in fact they are turning very acidic which is probably a larger problem than a global mean tempature rise.), and there are signs virtually everywhere you look.

Very few dispute that the earth is warming up and will continue to do so.

What is VERY disputed, is the cause and just how much impact humans are having. We don't have enough information to know for sure one way or another. We just don't.

What I can't stand, is that with every hot day, or every intense hurricane, or every out of place weather event people want to point to global warming. It's the greatest non sequitor of all! There is nothing to tie the heat we've had recently with climate change, there is nothing to tie the recent hurricanes to climate change, and there is nothing to tie a lot of shit to global warming.

But no one wants to present the real facts, because they aren't appealing. It isn't even known if the effects of global warming have the chance to produce a better earth for humans! Thats right, the earth warming up may not be all bad! The hell you say!

[JoeChalupa]

Can't we just look at prior year's temperatures in the Farmer's Almanac and compare them to current temperatures?

Seems pretty simple to me.

[MannyIsGod]

If you compare distances from the sun and planet temperatures, the distance does not explain the higher temperature of venus alone, something else is contributing to its high temp's.
Obviously Venus' atmosphere plays a huge role in that. But how does that help you prove Climate Change?

[Useruser666]

The real threat is not CO2 but DI-HYDROGEN MONOXIDE!

http://www.dhmo.org/


Environmental Impact of Dihydrogen Monoxide
Due in part to its widespread use in industry, Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is involved in many environmental incidents each year. While most are unavoidable given current technology, there can be little doubt that the presence of DHMO in each significantly increases the negative impact to the environment.

Among the many commonly-sited DHMO-related environmental impacts are:

* DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses."

* DHMO is an "enabling component" of acid rain -- in the absence of sufficient quantities of DHMO, acid rain is not a problem.

* DHMO is a causative agent in most instances of soil erosion -- sufficiently high levels of DHMO exacerbate the negative effects of soil erosion.

* DHMO is present in nearly every creek, stream, pond, river, lake and reservoir in the U.S. and around the world.

* Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.

* Recent massive DHMO exposures have lead to the loss of life and destruction of property in California, the Mid-West, the Philippines, and a number of islands in the Caribbean, to name just a few.

Industrial DHMO Dumping
In spite of the recent movement to ban unlawful dumping of hazardous chemicals into waterways in the U.S. and abroad, release of massive quantities of DHMO continues. Industry cannot be held accountable entirely because lawmakers are reluctant to pass legislation to make most forms of dumping of DHMO illegal. Reasons for this could include pressures from corporate leaders, industry lobbyists, and even vested foreign governments. This governmental inaction leading to nearly unregulated dumping may be one of the most overlooked environmental impacts of DHMO.

Meanwhile, federal (EPA) regulations are in place to make illegal the disposal of DHMO in landfills, including those licensed for hazardous waste. Regulations also stipulate that any DHMO appearing in a landfill must be removed. Judging from these laws it appears that the U.S. government recognizes the inherent danger DHMO poses to the environment, at least in certain circumstances.

The U.S. government refuses to ban the production, distribution, and use of DHMO. This inaction may be due to pressures from private interests and corporate-sponsored economists, among many, who predict a DHMO ban could produce disastrous results. Claims include damage to public health and the well-being of the U.S. and world economies.

Fortunately, some industry and governmental leaders are taking the initiative to inform and educate their employees in spite of what the U.S. government's official policy may be. Major employers, such as Sandia National Laboratories, a national security laboratory operated by the Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Co., for the U.S. Department of Energy, have begun notifying their workers of the DHMO issue. With efforts such as those at Sandia, the profligation of DHMO may one day be minimized.

Equally encouraging is the support of environmental organizations, such as the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, an important force in the southern hemisphere promoting "ecological wisdom, social responsibility, appropriate decision-making and non-violence." Notably, a busy high-ranking Member of Parliament there supports a ban on DHMO. This welcome endorsement serves as a reminder to a pre-occupied world that fostering a widespread knowledge of DHMO is crucial.

Back to DMRD main page

URL: http://www.dhmo.org/environment.html
Copyright © by Tom Way

http://www.ogauge.co.uk/DHMO.html


BAN DI-HYDROGEN MONOXIDE!

The Invisible Killer

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is colourless, odourless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. As little as a tablespoonful can be fatal. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe - often irreversible - damage to body tissue. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide gas or liquid do not end there. DHMO is an essential component of a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulphuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen Monoxide:

* is also known as Hydroxyl Acid or Hydrogen Hydroxide, and is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
* may cause severe burns which can be fatal, especially to children.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of motor vehicle brakes and other vital components.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!

Significant quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in Europe today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. In England DHMO causes millions of pounds of damage to property each year, in virtually every part of the country. Remember - costly damage caused by DHMO could affect your house at any time without warning.

Despite the danger, Dihydrogen Monoxide is often used:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power stations.
* in the production of styrofoam and other poisonous chemicals.
* to accelerate the growth of genetically modified crops.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after prolonged washing, food and produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other unhealthy food products.


Companies - more concerned with profits than the environment - dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The Horror Must Be Stopped!

The Blair government, under pressure from powerful industrial lobbies backed by faceless and unaccountable multi-national corporations, has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, long after after the end of WW2, the Royal Navy and other military organizations are still conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-million pound devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Numerous secret military research facilities including nuclear submarine bases receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

It's Not Too Late!

Find out more about this dangerous chemical!

Act NOW to prevent further contamination!

Please support our fighting fund!

Send your donations, large or small, to:-

Home of 'O' Gauge, 528 Kingston Road, Raynes Park, LONDON SW20 8DT

Thank you!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Is the climate changing? You bet. Does all the pavement and non-permeable cover have anything to do with it? You bet.

But never underestimate the ability of Mother Nature to correct herself. To think that humans are capable of completely altering the patterns and mechanisms of nature is pretty naive.


I never said completely alter. And to think that humans should be confined to the same standards set by other species is even more naive. It's quite ridiculous actually


You realize the ecological footprint of the typical american is about 13 acres? Can you imagine, an exploding human population (like now) with billions of people approaching the american way of life (like now) do you seriously think there is enough resources to support a species that does this?

Humans change the rules, and there is evidence for humans altering mechanisms of nature, theres increased levels of elements in soils that werent there even 10 years ago, this effects all kinds of ecological processes, sure maybe it doesnt flip them upside down, but it does alter them

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Obviously Venus' atmosphere plays a huge role in that. But how does that help you prove Climate Change?


If you want me to prove climate change we both know i cant. But if that's all youre looking for, then we might as well never say Duncan is the greatest player in the world, because that can't be proven either.

The stuff i've been mentioning supports it, just like the CO2 levels, the correlation to temperature, etc. What facts have you told me that don't support Climate Change?

[Useruser666]

I think Manny is telling you there is no PROOF that any of those findings can directly be related to human civilization.

[MannyIsGod]

My beef isn't with Climate Change, it is with the way it is presented. I'll look some things up so I can show you what I mean.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What I can't stand, is that with every hot day, or every intense hurricane, or every out of place weather event people want to point to global warming. It's the greatest non sequitor of all! There is nothing to tie the heat we've had recently with climate change, there is nothing to tie the recent hurricanes to climate change, and there is nothing to tie a lot of shit to global warming.

I never used today as proof for climate change, i realize how stupid it is to use days to talk about climate change. All today did was stimulate me to talk about it, cuz i know in my memory it has not been this hot at this time of year last year or the year before. Thats all.



It isn't even known if the effects of global warming have the chance to produce a better earth for humans! Thats right, the earth warming up may not be all bad! The hell you say!

pfff, well i guess it could improve the earth for the considerable population of human beings that dont live anywhere near any oceans or close to rivers that are prone to flooding.
Surely you don't think that global warming (regardless of cause) will keep the polar ice caps frozen, do you?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I think Manny is telling you there is no PROOF that any of those findings can directly be related to human civilization.


Dude I think I've been telling you that there has been proof we've increased CO2 levels considerably. That right there, i guess is PROOF. Beyond this is correlation. Noone in the entire history of the world will ever truely 'prove' anything, thats why it doesn't make sense to keep ignoring alot of correlations. Because most of what we've ever 'proved' about anything is based on correlation.

[MannyIsGod]

What if global warming changes areas of this earth that do not provide agricultre very well such as the Sahara in places much more like the Great Plains? What if Siberia warms and that land is able to be used in a much better fashion?

There are a lot of what ifs.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What if global warming changes areas of this earth that do not provide agricultre very well such as the Sahara in places much more like the Great Plains? What if Siberia warms and that land is able to be used in a much better fashion?

There are a lot of what ifs.


No doubt, and I can refrain from saying 'bullshit' outright when i hear something like that. But if we're on this track of brainstorming, then it will undoubtedly make alot of areas of human civilization shittier, like those near the ocean

[scott]

I think we should declare war on the sun.

[SWC Bonfire]

CBF, do some research on the effect of the earth's wobbling on its axis and the resultant climate change on North Africa. 5000 years ago, the sahara desert once received somewhat regular rainfall, and the middle east was more hospitible to developing civilization.

I think that that cycle completes every 12,000 years or so.

[Useruser666]

Dude I think I've been telling you that there has been proof we've increased CO2 levels considerably. That right there, i guess is PROOF. Beyond this is correlation. Noone in the entire history of the world will ever truely 'prove' anything, thats why it doesn't make sense to keep ignoring alot of correlations. Because most of what we've ever 'proved' about anything is based on correlation.

Your correlations don't proove that. There isn't even proof that CO2 is a major reason behind global warming, or that mankind is the sole reason for recent increases. You can take a look back at whole history of the earth's warming and cooling. Long before humans were here the earth cooled and warmed to and from both much colder and much hotter temperatures than what mankind has ever experienced. We may or may not be the sole cause for any recent changes, or we may be just riding changes that naturally occur and have no real say in.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advicating pollution or burning down rainforests or anything. But I've not been convinced that we are going to all fry in the next 50 years.

[Useruser666]

I think we should declare war on the sun.

I would like to be the first to call for the pull out of heat from San Antonio.

[B.AlMighty]

Your correlations don't proove that. There isn't even proof that CO2 is a major reason behind global warming, or that mankind is the sole reason for recent increases. You can take a look back at whole history of the earth's warming and cooling. Long before humans were here the earth cooled and warmed to and from both much colder and much hotter temperatures than what mankind has ever experienced. We may or may not be the sole cause for any recent changes, or we may be just riding changes that naturally occur and have no real say in.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advicating pollution or burning down rainforests or anything. But I've not been convinced that we are going to all fry in the next 50 years.

It won't be the sun that will be the cause of human life being "fried" it will be humans who destroy humanity.

[SpursWoman]

Dude I think I've been telling you that there has been proof we've increased CO2 levels considerably. That right there, i guess is PROOF. Beyond this is correlation. Noone in the entire history of the world will ever truely 'prove' anything, thats why it doesn't make sense to keep ignoring alot of correlations. Because most of what we've ever 'proved' about anything is based on correlation.


Can you find percentages of where/what the greatest sources of CO2 in the atmosphere are? The answer might surprise you.

[travis2]

The real threat is not CO2 but DI-HYDROGEN MONOXIDE!

http://www.dhmo.org/



http://www.ogauge.co.uk/DHMO.html

:tu :tu :tu :tu

:lol

[Spurminator]

For me, it would take a prominent politically-active singer/actress speaking out about global warming before I would take it seriously as an issue. It would help if this person was Jewish.

[timvp]

No doubt, and I can refrain from saying 'bullshit' outright when i hear something like that. But if we're on this track of brainstorming, then it will undoubtedly make alot of areas of human civilization shittier, like those near the ocean

Why don't you just come out and start a "Global Warming Is Causing These Hurricanes" thread? Why beat around the Bush?

[TheSuckUp]

I'll believe it as soon as President Bush says it's true.

[timvp]

For me, it would take a prominent politically-active singer/actress speaking out about global warming before I would take it seriously as an issue. It would help if this person was Jewish.

:tu

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Your correlations don't proove that. There isn't even proof that CO2 is a major reason behind global warming, or that mankind is the sole reason for recent increases. You can take a look back at whole history of the earth's warming and cooling. Long before humans were here the earth cooled and warmed to and from both much colder and much hotter temperatures than what mankind has ever experienced. We may or may not be the sole cause for any recent changes, or we may be just riding changes that naturally occur and have no real say in.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advicating pollution or burning down rainforests or anything. But I've not been convinced that we are going to all fry in the next 50 years.


There isnt proof that CO2 in itself is a major reason behind global warming?

Are you serious??? Show me a link to this one, i promise you i'll read it.

I never said mankind was the sole reason for the increases, that again would be silly. But to think we're not a big contributor to it is silly too.

Why do humans think we are so powerless to change things like this?!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Why don't you just come out and start a "Global Warming Is Causing These Hurricanes" thread? Why beat around the Bush?


when you assume you make an ass outta u and me

if i ever said global warming is causing these hurricanes, it was either outta anger cuz i was worried my hometown would be destroyed, or i was joking

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Can you find percentages of where/what the greatest sources of CO2 in the atmosphere are? The answer might surprise you.


So then the increase of CO2 since we've been recording it, has been due to these surprising sources? Gee, I guess taking this back a while we can assume CO2 started to exist like only about 500K years ago :rolleyes


It's like....are there more or less cars than 100 years ago?



How many pounds of carbon in the air from one car? 1 gallon gas = 22 pounds co2

Are there more or less rainforest than there was 100 years ago? (rainforest being the most efficient areas in the world for converting CO2 to O2, Oceans are the highest contributor due to sheer size)

Are the trends we witnessing going to be reversed any time soon? No, in fact they'll only keep going...

[Useruser666]

Sorry this image is from a German website. I hope you can still get the gist of it.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2-Dateien/paleo4.gif

[Spam]

Damn...those Germans are some old mofo's.

[SpursWoman]

There isnt proof that CO2 in itself is a major reason behind global warming?

Are you serious??? Show me a link to this one, i promise you i'll read it.

I never said mankind was the sole reason for the increases, that again would be silly. But to think we're not a big contributor to it is silly too.

Why do humans think we are so powerless to change things like this?!


Yeah, but you need to see where the majority of CO2 comes from before you assume it's all the dirty, mean humans....instead of just making assumptions. :lol

I'd never say that humans don't have any affect whatsoever...that just seems like common sense. But you keep talking about CO2 like it's 90% humans doing all of the dirty work.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it is hot outside

Fair

102°F
(39°C

Fucking A.

[Useruser666]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif


Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270a.gif

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gif

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270c.gif

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270d.gif

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270e.gif

[Useruser666]

Some resources:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

4) a. Global Warming Information Page
by Norman J. Macdonald, M.S. and Joseph p. Sobel, Ph.D.

b. Weather Matters- Global Warming Theories Questionable
by G. H. Taylor, Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University,
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, August 20, 2000.

c. Personal communication with Dr. Patrick J. Michaels,
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

d. Article by EarthTrack Focus/ World Climate Report

e. Why We Are Skeptics On The Global Warming Issue
Michael T. Halbouty, CPG-00010 and Gerald T. Westbrook

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methan record and budget
Robert Grumbine

[Useruser666]

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/images/02a.jpg


What are the sources of carbon dioxide?

Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is created naturally by animals' breathing (respiration) and by the decay of plant and animal matter. These processes are natural sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and account for about 38% of all CO2 emissions (Figure 1). Another large natural source of CO2 includes the oceans.

Carbon dioxide is also released by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) for power and electricity, and the production of cement. These are anthropogenic or man-made sources of carbon dioxide. Although man-made emissions of CO2 are significant, they are much smaller than natural emissions.

Another important man-made source of carbon dioxide is deforestation. Trees and plants take in carbon dioxide through the process of photosynthesis, and store it as carbon in their tissues and wood fibre. In many regions of the world, forests are being destroyed to clear land for development. This allows the large amount of carbon in the wood to be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Figure 1: Sources of carbon dioxide

[JoePublic]

I'm guilty of contributing to man-made gasses.

[xrayzebra]

Well, it is hot outside

Fair

102°F
(39°C

Fucking A.

yep, it sure is. I can remember running around barefooted and without a shirt on Christmas day when I was a kid. Just Texas I guess. It is hot here, one of the reason's I like it....

[Vashner]

The planet has always gone thru cycles.. multiple ice ages...

multiple ice meltings.. multiple quakes.. storms .. waves.. asteroids.. etc..

Do we need to keep a focus on pollution and energy yes..

But the constant political harping.. one second it's the economy stupid the next it's pollution..

make up your liberal wiener mines you can't have a good economy without 18 wheelers ships trains and autos .. at least not quite yet without new power...

You see.. damned if you do. .damned if you don't..

What if we could say snap our fingers and transform every family on earth to middle class with 2 cars and a 3 bedroom house loaded with shit..

We would like run out of gas in a day.. there are 2 billion people without power .. and billions more without cars..

There are happy people in the jungle that don't want Kerry's SUV.. they want people to fuck off and leave them alone...

A hot plate of fried monkey brains on a rainy day in the rain forest may be richer than a day with kerry and his wife on there yacht.

[Shelly]

I would like to be the first to call for the pull out of heat from San Antonio.

Me too. I want to wear my cute jacket I just bought!

[SpursWoman]

Me too. I want to wear my cute jacket I just bought!


I would just like to walk outside and NOT have my mascara melt on my eyelashes. :spin

[Vashner]

Stars burn elements for fusion fuel.. they start with simple elements .. as the sun starts to eat and produce more advanced elements it can grow in size and do all kinds of wierd things. This may of been what really killed the dino's. The sun has a "fusion" shift that produces a burst of radiation off the charts.. cooking almost everything on earth...

Not saying it could happen again.. uh.. maybe.

[xrayzebra]

Stars burn elements for fusion fuel.. they start with simple elements .. as the sun starts to eat and produce more advanced elements it can grow in size and do all kinds of wierd things. This may of been what really killed the dino's. The sun has a "fusion" shift that produces a burst of radiation off the charts.. cooking almost everything on earth...

Not saying it could happen again.. uh.. maybe.

And you have to go and ruin everyting, don't you. Dammit, you know WE made it happen. Now shut-up and go to your room. :angel

[PizzaFace]

This damn heat makes me break out.....then again so does breathing.

[xrayzebra]

Me too. I want to wear my cute jacket I just bought!


Shelly, you are one of the reasons I like ladies. Because you are ladies. Men are so boring. I think by the end of the week you will get your wish, well at least late in the evening...... :lol

[Vashner]

Hum this is odd.. the middle picture seems to catch some kind of event..
7:35
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20050926_0736_eit_195.gif

7:48
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20050926_0748_eit_195.gif

8:24
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20050926_0824_eit_195.gif

[Vashner]

Ok and the ending to this little bed time story.. when the sun starts to use Iron....

That's it.. the last gasp before nova stage... Earth will be toast by then.. the suns border extending well past where earth is right now.

[Shelly]

Shelly, you are one of the reasons I like ladies. Because you are ladies. Men are so boring. I think by the end of the week you will get your wish, well at least late in the evening...... :lol


:lol I'm contemplating turning my a/c down to 60 so I can wear it!

[xrayzebra]

Ok and the ending to this little bed time story.. when the sun starts to use Iron....

That's it.. the last gasp before nova stage... Earth will be toast by then.. the suns border extending well past where earth is right now.

Does this mean I can buy a SUV and not be accused of causing the earth to heat up. That is if I can afford to buy the SUV and afford the gas to run it.
Besides, in my younger years they gave me iron the make me strong and handsome, I not sure it really worked that well, in either case.... :lol

[Vashner]

It means that no matter what we ants do unless we get off the rock we are dead..

It means that somegroup is being 2 faced.. you can't cry about the economy and using fuel at the same time. Right now it's tied together.

As a matter of fact if the GDP % was growing the way the demorats wanted it to grow... it would make fuel use and pollution even worse..

[Spam]

It means that no matter what we ants do unless we get off the rock we are dead..

It means that somegroup is being 2 faced.. you can't cry about the economy and using fuel at the same time. Right now it's tied together.

As a matter of fact if the GDP % was growing the way the demorats wanted it to grow... it would make fuel use and pollution even worse..

Political Forum please.

[Vashner]

I didn't put the thread here....

Maybe you would quote the first post and subject?

This broadcast from outside the matrix is complete..

Enjoy your blue pill day..

[MannyIsGod]

The sun isn't dense enough to end in a nova. It'll end in a planetary nebula after expanding to a red giant. But yeah, thats 5 billion years away or so. lets try to make it to one billion first.

[Vashner]

I do think pollution is bad.. but giving everyone on the planet a car (the kerry / jimmy carter plan) is not the solution...

[Vashner]

The sun isn't dense enough to end in a nova. It'll end in a planetary nebula after expanding to a red giant. But yeah, thats 5 billion years away or so. lets try to make it to one billion first.

I bet you 50 bucks it blows up.. meet me at Pluto orbit in 5 billion years...

[SpursFanDan]

If you don't think global warning is possible, you're a fucking moron

[MannyIsGod]

I bet you 50 bucks it blows up.. meet me at Pluto orbit in 5 billion years...
:lol

I'll take that bet.

[Vashner]

Sure it's possible.. it's happend bunches of times just look at the fossil record..

Kofi Annan, "Let them touch those things. just once" Celine Dion, Streisand, Gore, Carter, etc.. want to solve world poverty..

That means giving a car and electric grid to every human on earth..

Explain to me how that solves pollution and warming issues?

[bigzak25]

the temps have been in the 70's out here since i landed...maybe one day a bit colder, in the 60's....gotta love being closer to the water...:tu

What is this Global Warming you speak of? :smokin

[maxpower]

Not that I don't believe in global warming...however ...most of the temperature comparisons are based on however long man has had the ability to guage the temperature and keep historical records. That is but a miniscule amount of time in earth's history. Climate changes over millenia is how you can tell if the earth's atmosphere is changing out of the ordinary. While humans have put it to the earth's environment, it(the earth) is no pantywaist. It's atmosphere is pretty much self sufficient and regenerating to the point that humans could scarcely put a dent in it for more than a few centuries...if that.

[lil'mo]

lets fuck up the earth as badly as we can while we are here and let later genreations clean it up!!!! who's with me?!?!? I'm gonna start with all the grass in my backyard! brb

[whottt]

pfff, well i guess it could improve the earth for the considerable population of human beings that dont live anywhere near any oceans or close to rivers that are prone to flooding.
Surely you don't think that global warming (regardless of cause) will keep the polar ice caps frozen, do you?

Oh my God! The Ice Caps are melting? People near Oceans and Rivers are endangered?


Run for your lives! Evacuate!

[whottt]

OMG...I just read that the continents are on a collision course! Fuck me! Run Run!...Every man for himself!

[spurs=bling]

Well, whatever the hell the reason it's so hot...I'll just be damn happy when it stops to not be getting anymore $400 CPS bills. For 2 months, anyway. :flipoff :cuss :lol
and we get $595.00 light bills

[spurs=bling]

Oh my God! The Ice Caps are melting? People near Oceans and Rivers are endangered?


Run for your lives! Evacuate!

[whottt]

:lol

Oh shit...I just read that the speed of the earths rotation is 1 second slower with every passing day...Fuck! What are we going to do?

I got it...quick...everyone run to their left...really really fast!

[whottt]

We can't even control hurricanes...do you realize how much larger the Earth's atomosphere is?

I love it when people use Venus as an example...are we supposed to learn from the Venusian's mistake? Tell me what they did wrong and I promise not to do it...

Oh...Cow farts are a tremendous cause of global warming...so much so that a cowfart tax was imposed on many of the signitories of the Kyotol protocol...

Ask some of our New Zeleander Spurs buddies about it.

If cow farts can do that much damage...imaging how much damage dinosaurs cutting the cheese did to the environment!

I hate to tell you this but you live and breathe as the result of environmental pollution and ozone depletion...you live because of a giant nuclear reaction combined with chemical spills and ultraviolet rays...

[spurs=bling]

We can't even control hurricanes...do you realize how much larger the Earth's atomosphere is?

I love it when people use Venus as an example...are we supposed to learn from the Venusian's mistake? Tell me what they did wrong and I promose not to do it...

Oh...Cow farts are a tremendous cause of global warming...so much so that a cowfart tax was imposed on many of the signitories of the Kyotol protocol...

Ask some of our New Zeleander Spurs buddies about it.

If cow farts can do that much damage...imaging how much damage dinosaurs cutting the cheese did to the environment!
:lmao

[Spam]

No matter what happens.......Spam will survive.

[whottt]

BTW, that thing we call Mother Ocean is nothing but a giant environemntal catastrophe and has been for a billion years. It's nothing but a giant sewer filled with chemicals reactions, dead animals, and shit and piss...So if you've ever wondered what fish shit tastes like...just think back to the last time you got a good healthy gulp of Ocean water. I think the piss is what gives it that salty taste :)


When you get the fish to stop pissing and shitting in the Ocean...then we can talk about human impact on the environment. The g damn fish are polluting 75% of the Earth...Humans only pollute 25%!

[spurs=bling]

BTW, that thing we call Mother Ocean is nothing but a giant environemntal catastrophe and has been for a billion years. It's nothing but a giant sewer filled with chemicals reactions, dead animals, and shit and piss...So if you've ever wondered what fish shit tastes like...just think back to the last time you got a good healthy gulp of Ocean water. I think the piss is what gives it that salty taste :)


When you get the fish to stop pissing and shitting in the Ocean...then we can talk about human impact on the environment. The g damn fish are polluting 75% of the Earth...Humans only pollute 25%!
:spin

[SpursWoman]

When you get the fish to stop pissing and shitting in the Ocean...then we can talk about human impact on the environment. The g damn fish are polluting 75% of the Earth...Humans only pollute 25%!


'Cuz isn't there, like, a ga-jillion of them? That must be why 99% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from ocean water vapor. :lmao

[mookie2001]

72.4

[boutons]

there is no doubt the global warming is real (unless you're an right-wing idealogue who only follows Repub science)

dubya lies when he says "more study", but that's just what the energy boys told him to say.

The question is how much global warming is due to human activity (eg, esp burning carbon fuels) and how much is natural.

But let's fuck it all. Let's just keep going on our merry way, assume everythng is ok, keep burning carbon fuels and higher and higher rates, run ourselves into the petroleum "tipping point" sooner rather than later, fuck conservation, fuck research into alternative fuels, into renewable sources, etc, etc. This is called the "status quo" and by definition, conservatives' priority is to maintain the status quo.

Never expect anything creative or alternative or visionary from a conservative, as anyone can see demonstrated by 5 years of dubya's puppetmasters running the show.

[hunter-thereckoning]

hey mookie....what do you do to help stop global warming?

[whottt]

there is no doubt the global warming is real (unless you're an right-wing idealogue who only follows Repub science)

dubya lies when he says "more study", but that's just what the energy boys told him to say.

The question is how much global warming is due to human activity (eg, esp burning carbon fuels) and how much is natural.

But let's fuck it all. Let's just keep going on our merry way, assume everythng is ok, keep burning carbon fuels and higher and higher rates, run ourselves into the petroleum "tipping point" sooner rather than later, fuck conservation, fuck research into alternative fuels, into renewable sources, etc, etc. This is called the "status quo" and by definition, conservatives' priority is to maintain the status quo.

Never expect anything creative or alternative or visionary from a conservative, as anyone can see demonstrated by 5 years of dubya's puppetmasters running the show.


^^^^^Leave it to an asshole to bring politics into it...

[mookie2001]

well according to some people it cant be stopped
this last year i have greatly reduced my driving
thats due mostly to prices though

[hunter-thereckoning]

true...its funny because you drive a truck with a large exhaust

[SpursWoman]

^^^^^Leave it to an asshole to bring politics into it...


Think we should start a "get boutons laid" fund? :lol

[whottt]

well according to some people it cant be stopped
this last year i have greatly reduced my driving
thats due mostly to prices though


Yeah...but you and boutons and your ilk use PCs don't you?

The chemical combinations used in the making of a micro chip are among the most toxic on the planet...that case you have is made from fossil fuels and CO2 was produced in the making of it...

But you and boutons don't give a fuck about that do you...as long as you have you precious fucking internet! Polluters! Global warmers!

Boutons is a fucking hypocrite unless he gives up his computer right now and never uses it again.

[whottt]

Think we should start a "get boutons laid" fund? :lol

I'd rather we start a "send boutons to the Paki Afghan border" fund...

[hunter-thereckoning]

well according to some people it cant be stopped
this last year i have greatly reduced my driving
thats due mostly to prices though

then why are you talking about it if its unstoppable?

[whottt]

Why environmentalists should love the prospect of thermonuclear war:

Nuclear winter, how it can offset Global Warming, and other benefits to the planet:



Carl Sagan, and other authors introduced the idea of "Nuclear Winter" in a 1983 scientific journal article (Science, Dec. 1983, pg. 1283). In the theory of Nuclear Winter, after the explosions of a nuclear exchange have died down--the spread of smoke in the atmosphere from nuclear-started fires, could absorb sunlight, darken the sky and ultimately lower the temperature of the Earth from 1 to 5 degrees Centigrade within a few months.


The models in this study further show that a change in the temperature of even one (1) degree Centigrade (which may not sound like much) could unbalance the ecosystem and affect the survival of many species on Earth, including mankind.





Other researchers studying carbon deposits in sedimentary layers have documented a period in Earth’s past when ancient wildfires were widespread. Did these “ancient wildfires” lead to the extinction of the Dinosaurs? Fossils in the sediments in the K-T boundary also show a strange disappearance of about 50 percent of the genera in this period of time.


These ancient fires may provide evidence from Earth's past that give us an idea of how a nuclear war climate might affect the climate. It would be hard to prepare for the striking of an asteroid, though in Hollywood films mankind always gets together to defeat even such a random event.


This layer of particles would significantly reduce the amount of sunlight that reached the surface, and could potentially remain in the stratosphere for weeks or even years (smoke and soot arising from the burning petroleum fuels and plastics absorbs sunlight much more effectively than smoke from burning wood). The ash would be carried by the midlatitude west-to-east winds, forming a uniform belt of particles encircling the northern hemisphere from 30° to 60° latitude. These thick black clouds could block out much of the sun's light for a period as long as several weeks, causing surface temperatures to drop by as much as 20°C (35°F) during the occlusion.

The combination of darkness and killing frosts, combined with high doses of radiation from nuclear fallout, would severely damage plant life in the region. The extreme cold, high radiation levels, and the widespread destruction of industrial, medical, and transportation infrastructures along with food supplies and crops would trigger a massive death toll from starvation, exposure, and disease. It was also thought that nitrogen oxides generated by the blasts would degrade the ozone layer, as had been observed in the first thermonuclear blasts. Secondary effects from ozone depletion (and concomitant increases in ultraviolet radiation) would be significant, with impacts on the viability of most human staple agricultural crops as well as disruption of ocean food chains by killing off phytoplankton.

One effort to predict the meteorological effects of a large-scale nuclear war was the 1983 "TTAPS" study (from the initials of the last names of its authors, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T.P. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan). The authors were inspired to write the paper by cooling effects due to dust storms on Mars and to carry out a calculation of the effect they used a simplified two dimensional model of the Earth's atmosphere that assumed that conditions at a given latitude were constant. The consensus with more sophisticated calculations is that the atmospheric model used in TTAPS probably overestimates the degree of cooling although the amount of this overestimation remains unclear. Although such nuclear war would undoubtedly be devastating, the degree of damage to life on Earth as a whole remains controversial.


Now that is a pretty good argument on the benefits of nuclear war to the Human Race, however...I need to make a couple of points...


#1. That part of about the nuclear explosions destroying the ozone and letting all the UV rays in...

That's bullshit...Ozone itself is created by UV light reacting with Oxygen...so a huge influc of UV rays would increase the rapidity with which ozone is created in our atmosphere...a lot of people and animals will be dead so there will be a lot more oxygen for it to react with. So the UV radiation thing is not a big deal...

On top of that...

It's been well established that dark skinned people have somewhat of a natural immunity to UV rays due to a larger concentration of pigment in their skin...

What does this mean in laymens terms? Well Mookie...it means all the white people will die first...which I know makes you happy.

And furthermore...the surviving civilization will almost certainly be vegetarian in nature due to the lack of land and animals.

The best part about it is...that the civil infracstructure and industrial complexes of just about every nation in the world will either be destroyed in the way...or else fall into disrepair from a lack of resources and energy to fix them.

This means...no more dirty nasty cars to polluting the earth...no big ole nasty factories producing ozone depleting emissions...

So in fact...not only will the nuclear winter offset the rising temperatures of the Earth...it will totally eradicate the casues of them...as well as the causes of ozone depletion..as well as a variety of Earth's other impending issues like over population and hunger.


You get 10 years of it being a little cold and then boom...paradise. No more white people, cars and meat eaters, ...no more ozone depletion and no more global warming, no more over population problems...hell it'll probably even help communism come into vogue because everyone is going to be poor...


And remember...nuclear energy, chemical reactions and UV rays are our friends...t'was they that created us and gave us life...t'will be they that save us.

[whottt]

The models in this study further show that a change in the temperature of even one (1) degree Centigrade (which may not sound like much) could unbalance the ecosystem and affect the survival of many species on Earth, including mankind.


Hmmm...let's see 7-500 years ago(back when Greenland was actually Green) the Earth hit a mini-iceage...let's see, the temperature then compared to now...1 degree centigrade cooler than it is now...Something to think about.

[Shelly]

We can't even control hurricanes...do you realize how much larger the Earth's atomosphere is?

I love it when people use Venus as an example...are we supposed to learn from the Venusian's mistake? Tell me what they did wrong and I promise not to do it...

Oh...Cow farts are a tremendous cause of global warming...so much so that a cowfart tax was imposed on many of the signitories of the Kyotol protocol...

Ask some of our New Zeleander Spurs buddies about it.

If cow farts can do that much damage...imaging how much damage dinosaurs cutting the cheese did to the environment!

I hate to tell you this but you live and breathe as the result of environmental pollution and ozone depletion...you live because of a giant nuclear reaction combined with chemical spills and ultraviolet rays...


I told y'all it was the cows. But did you listen? Noooooo

[boutons]

"The chemical combinations used in the making of a micro chip are among the most toxic on the planet."

your point? you saying semiconductors are primary cause of CO2 pollution? or any pollution. semiconductor factories, nearly all of which were built recently under stringent pollution regulations, are significant sources of pollution?

"..that case you have is made from fossil fuels and CO2 was produced in the making of it..."

your science sucks hind tit, Whott. In USA, 70% of petroleum is use for transportation, about another 20% is used for space heating and electrical generation. The amt of petroleum that ends as plastic or materials, eg in PCs and electronics, is actually quite small.

Throw in the burning of coal, another industry dubya protects, and you just about have 100% of the C02 produced by man in the USA. And the USA consumes twice as much petroleum per capita as other industrial nations.

So your boy dubya's hypocritical call today to reduce driving (he goes from dumb to dumber every time he opens his mouth) is in the "right" direction, "personal virtue" as dickhead calls it, but of course he really means reduce your driving temporarily due to the hurricane-reduced gasoline refining capacity. dubya has absolutley no interest and no programs to reduce petroleum consumption and thereby reduces the $Bs in profits of his oilco buddies.

[mookie2001]

whottt owned yet again

[whottt]

Americans drive cars, it's Bush's fault

Just shut the fuck up.

[whottt]

whottt owned yet again


Ahh so you'd rather pollute the environment than stop posting...that's what I thought...hypocrite. Just like boutons...preach, preach, preach, preach, bitch, bitch, but when it comes time to help the environment by not contributing to polution by purchase and usage of computer products...then it's different....it's different when ya'll do it right?

Notice how boutons ignorantly ignores the fact that computers and their parts must be shipped...and shipping uses a lot of fuel as well...does he care? No, he just keeps on posting and blames Bush for inventing the automobile. Somewhere someone is hot...yet boutons and mookie don't give a fuck, they just keep on posting and preaching about what people need to do about global warming...as they stuff themselves and get fat on flurocarbons and causing people everywhere to get hot. Fucking Pigs.

[MannyIsGod]

If you guys want to have a real discussion on climate change, start by backing up your statements with studies and actual facts. I'm so tired of the same bullshit that is tossed around.

"most scientists say..." "anyone can see..." "blah blah fucking blah"

If you feel something is correct, back it up or shut the fuck up.

[xrayzebra]

But let's fuck it all. Let's just keep going on our merry way, assume everythng is ok, keep burning carbon fuels and higher and higher rates, run ourselves into the petroleum "tipping point" sooner rather than later, fuck conservation, fuck research into alternative fuels, into renewable sources, etc, etc. This is called the "status quo" and by definition, conservatives' priority is to maintain the status quo.



Hey that will work for me, sounds like a really good plan. Wish I had of thought of it myself.

[MannyIsGod]

Hey CBF, watch ABC news tonight. They have a report on the ice caps.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif



http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270a.gif

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gif

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270c.gif

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270d.gif

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270e.gif


It's funny because you think ~3% is not that much.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

If you guys want to have a real discussion on climate change, start by backing up your statements with studies and actual facts. I'm so tired of the same bullshit that is tossed around.

"most scientists say..." "anyone can see..." "blah blah fucking blah"

If you feel something is correct, back it up or shut the fuck up.


Trust me, i would have gladly typed out shitloads of stuff from the book im currently studying, and looked up sources, but i've been studying for tests and what not.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You're moving from global warming to the entire impact of humans on the environment. Which do you want to discuss?

BTW, I forgot to say at the time, that the reason they cannot be seperated, is because their effects are synergistic....which is why the loss of recharge zones, and available habitat for diversity is increasing the effect of the climate change, and vice versa, compared to if they happened seperately

[Cant_Be_Faded]

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/images/02a.jpg


And this tells you what? How does this support your view at all? The small bit of stuff due to humans isn't small. And considering it's appeared in such a short time makes it super important.

This is an excerpt from the book Conservation Biology.



Our contemporary climate represents the end of an interglacial period. For unknown reasons, glacial-interglacial cycling stopped about 10000 years ago and temperatures have remained relatively stable, varying by only 1 degree celsius. Over that time, atmospheric carbon levels shifted only about 10% until the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, the increase of 0.6 [I can hear it already, "But 0.6 isn't that much, im conservative so it has to be true"-CBF] since 1910 represents a large and sudden [bolded by me-CBF] change compared to natural variations over the past 10000 years. Further, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 36% since 1910--from 280ppm to 380 ppm--which is significantly outside the bounds of natural variability over the past half million years. Like withdrawing money long stored in a huge bank vault, the Industrial Revolution has allowed these carbon deposists to once again circulate in the worlds "carbon economy."

The book is written by a whole slew of people, pm me if you want the full reference information manny

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So besides Manny insisting that everything I say does not officially prove man made climate change, useruser posting graphics that can easily support either view, conservative bs, and timvp slandering me, I haven't seen one legitimate post saying that there is not man made climate change going on.

Even those of you who dont believe its going on admit the earth goes through cycles and this is just an effect of that. The point is, this current rate of 'cycling' is unprecedented.

[MannyIsGod]

All I'm asking for are studies to show how humans are incresing the effects or the root cause of Global Warming.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

look these up

IPCC. 2001a. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.


Karoly, et. al. Detection of a human influence on North American climate. Science 302:1200-1203.

Stott, P.A. 2003. Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30:1728.

[mookie2001]

I trust cbf


just like if I was talking about Hodges Mitchell...

[SpursWoman]

So besides Manny insisting that everything I say does not officially prove man made climate change, useruser posting graphics that can easily support either view, conservative bs, and timvp slandering me, I haven't seen one legitimate post saying that there is not man made climate change going on.

The point of those graphics was to point out to you that humans are most certainly not the greatest contributors to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by a long shot, which is what you were suggesting earlier in this thread.

I don't disagree that the shit humans put in the air can't possibly be damaging...that would just appear to be common sense. But how significant is it really that it would change entire cycles of the earth's climate? Or is this whole concept of global warming just science trying to justifiy man's egocentric tendency to think he can actually manipulate or make any difference whatsoever in the power of nature?

[mookie2001]

yeah cbf dont be so full of yourself

[SpursWoman]

:lmao


That wasn't directed at CBF...that was actually a thought I've harbored ever since I got pulled under by the under-tow the last time I went swimming at the coast. :wow :oops

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The point of those graphics was to point out to you that humans are most certainly not the greatest contributors to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by a long shot, which is what you were suggesting earlier in this thread.

If not taking time to point out something so fundamental as WATER VAPOR means that i was implying humans were the chief cause of ALL CO2 in this planet, then yes, you are absolutely right.



But how significant is it really that it would change entire cycles of the earth's climate?

You seem to be an efficient googler. Why not look up the time periods and rates of these 'cycles' you seem to know so much about. Then compare that to the time period and rate of this 'cycle' we are seeing right now.

Then you will see the significance.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Anyone who thinks mankind has an effect on nature is not egocentric, but educated.

Or i guess it was just coincidence that extinction events happened around the same time periods of man's migration into every new continent/island

[SpursWoman]

My, my...aren't we testy this evening?



That wasn't directed at CBF...that was actually a thought I've harbored ever since I got pulled under by the under-tow the last time I went swimming at the coast.


How's that for scientific? :shootme

And btw, if it were that obvious and the evidence was that irrefutable, there wouldn't be these arguments, now, would there?

[Vashner]

Anyone who thinks John Kerry or Hillary's "jobs and the economy" will reduce fossil burn is not egocentric, but educated.

Or i guess it was just a coincidence that extincition events happend because of man's migration using barney's foot powered suv. Everyone knows that bam bam was a polluter too on the new continent/island.

[thispego]

lol, so what do you want to do about it cbf?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

My, my...aren't we testy this evening?





How's that for scientific? :shootme

And btw, if it were that obvious and the evidence was that irrefutable, there wouldn't be these arguments, now, would there?

if you added "and people read that much" then you'd be absolutely right

[SpursWoman]

Anyone who thinks John Kerry or Hillary's "jobs and the economy" will reduce fossil burn is not egocentric, but educated.

Or i guess it was just a coincidence that extincition events happend because of man's migration using barney's foot powered suv. Everyone knows that bam bam was a polluter too on the new continent/island.


Well, if Wilma would have quit turning the fucking a/c down to 65...we could all still have garbage disposals that talked back. :lol

[Vashner]

Yea the Kilowatt consumption was real high before the last ice age. You know with the alien reactors and stuff... And all the lighting at Fred flinstones bowling alley.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

lol, so what do you want to do about it cbf?

well the only logical thing to do in these times is to impose (or 'suggest' a la George W Bush) stricter regulations

[mookie2001]

or try to get people to actually admit its going on

[thispego]

well the only logical thing to do in these times is to impose (or 'suggest' a la George W Bush) stricter regulations
who do you think he would listen to more? you or mookie?? or boutons?

[mookie2001]

Donald

[Cant_Be_Faded]

who do you think he would listen to more? you or mookie?? or boutons?


a major impedement of the whole process is getting scientists to translate their scientific jargon to layman's terms, without losing any emphasis and meaning, so that the officials can understand it

[SpursWoman]

if you added "and people read that much" then you'd be absolutely right


Not even that....this issue has become so damn partisan it gets harder and harder to find anything but biased editorial-type crap, and I don't have that much time to sift through it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got someone I've got to go globally warm up :smokin

[thispego]

damn, you're speaking in leaps and bounds. this is a problem that, if fixed, wont be fixed in our lifetime... which is convenient, because the effects of this problem wont be felt in our lifetime either... looks like we dont have much to worry about eh?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Not even that....this issue has become so damn partisan it gets harder and harder to find anything but biased editorial-type crap, and I don't have that much time to sift through it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got someone I've got to go globally warm up :smokin


Nothing you and I ever said on this page was ever remotely partisan until you just said that.

Heres some advice

When reading about global warming, try reading an actual published paper from scientific literature. Now I just have to wait until you insist all scientific literature is partisan and political as well :rolleyes

or try googling without using the words words "W" "conservative" "liberal" "limbaugh" and you just may get something non-partisan

[mookie2001]

what about Circus Charlie XII?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

damn, you're speaking in leaps and bounds. this is a problem that, if fixed, wont be fixed in our lifetime... which is convenient, because the effects of this problem wont be felt in our lifetime either... looks like we dont have much to worry about eh?


If you look at it that way, then no. But some people are out there that think it is our duty to respect life and the world around us to preserve it for future generations.

[thispego]

what about Circus Charlie XII?
what about him
?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

what about him
?


he's basically saying if we dont worry about it now, then there will be no circus charlie twelve

[mookie2001]

he shouldnt have to live in bubbles and tunnels and sleep during the day because 800000 people a day wanted to get yukons and tahoes and dismiss global warming as liberal propaganda

[SpursWoman]

Nothing you and I ever said on this page was ever remotely partisan until you just said that.

Heres some advice

When reading about global warming, try reading an actual published paper from scientific literature. Now I just have to wait until you insist all scientific literature is partisan and political as well :rolleyes

or try googling without using the words words "W" "conservative" "liberal" "limbaugh" and you just may get something non-partisan


I dunno nuttin 'bout dem buks, ya'no?

" :rolleyes "

[Cant_Be_Faded]

he shouldnt have to live in bubbles and tunnels and sleep during the day because 800000 people a day wanted to get yukons and tahoes and dismiss global warming as liberal propaganda


:lol exactly. Alright I'm out. Be back tommorow to see how others have misconstrued, misunderstood, misinterpreted, muddled everything I said.

[thispego]

If you look at it that way, then no. But some people are out there that think it is our duty to respect life and the world around us to preserve it for future generations.
it is not you or I or mookie or spurswoman or boutons who are fucking shit up, it's things that have been going on before your dads dads dad was a fetus. and it will continue to go..... You think I dont give a shit??? I have no say in the matter. It's the people who have the power and the money to not give a shit about what they are doing or possibly not doing to the environment.

[Vashner]

Sure it's a problem.. But we have to stop pointing fingers...

These couple of liberal weathermen.. you don't think they have the tahoe and throwing cig butts out the window? .. .Doctors make the worst patients..

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I dunno nuttin 'bout dem buks, ya'no?

" :rolleyes "


I dont look for openings, but jeeze, when did anything I mention for the last 2 pages have anything to do with politics?

[thispego]

he's basically saying if we dont worry about it now, then there will be no circus charlie twelve
you mean 13? i assure you, the charlie line is in no immediate danger

he shouldnt have to live in bubbles and tunnels and sleep during the day because 800000 people a day wanted to get yukons and tahoes and dismiss global warming as liberal propaganda
i'd expect that from you mook

:lol exactly. Alright I'm out. Be back tommorow to see how others have misconstrued, misunderstood, misinterpreted, muddled everything I said.
but for you to agree? I thought this arguement was steering clear of politics and partisanship?

[mookie2001]

goddam thispego
lets meet in person

and fight!!!!!!!!!!

[thispego]

goddam thispego
lets meet in person

and fight!!!!!!!!!!
i'll puncture your soft spot i swear to god

[mookie2001]

if i didnt know you i would think thispego was like the biggest chode of all time
you make marcus bryant look like mr dio

[Cant_Be_Faded]

but for you to agree? I thought this arguement was steering clear of politics and partisanship?


i put the :lol for you to take that with a grain of salt

besides, in mookie terms, he was pretty much right on


you make marcus bryant look like mr dio

rofl

[SpursWoman]

I dont look for openings, but jeeze, when did anything I mention for the last 2 pages have anything to do with politics?


Actually, since this thread was started I've looked more and more of this stuff up, articles mostly....not because I don't believe text books can't be useful, but you can take 2 different text books written by 2 different scientists with similar educational backgrounds about the exact same topic and have completely different slants to them. I prefer debates (not NBADan kind of debates, btw, but people who actually appear to be knowledgable) ... I find them a lot more informational and extremely more entertaining...and I don't feel like there's going to be a test afterwards (haha). And yes, in my search I've run across my fair share of political crap in that regard....it seems to be unavoidable these days.

[thispego]

i put the :lol for you to take that with a grain of salt

besides, in mookie terms, he was pretty much right on

yeah.... right :rolleyes

btw, what class are you taking that got you so passionate over the subject?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Actually, since this thread was started I've looked more and more of this stuff up, articles mostly....not because I don't believe text books can't be useful, but you can take 2 different text books written by 2 different scientists with similar educational backgrounds about the exact same topic and have completely different slants to them. I prefer debates (not NBADan kind of debates, btw, but people who actually appear to be knowledgable) ... I find them a lot more informational and extremely more entertaining...and I don't feel like there's going to be a test afterwards (haha). And yes, in my search I've run across my fair share of political crap in that regard....it seems to be unavoidable these days.


Thats cool. Just read more articles by academics over politicians if you want facts. They don't publish shit by scientists who voice opinions and bias, at least not in a respected journal.


btw, what class are you taking that got you so passionate over the subject?
??? I've always believed in global warming. The insanely hot end of September made me really passionate over it, even though it's kind of silly to use it as evidence. I'm taking a Conservation Bio class, but we haven't even got to global warming and stuff yet.

[MannyIsGod]

look these up

IPCC. 2001a. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

Yeah, I'd rather not read documents with an agenda that are made by panels who are willing to change information and leave false information within reports to push their agendas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29397-2005Jan22.html



Chris Landsea, who works at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane research division in Miami, said Monday that he would not contribute to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's chapter on atmospheric and surface climate conditions because the lead author had told reporters global warming contributed to intense Atlantic hurricanes last year.


In a letter he posted on the Internet, Landsea said there was little evidence to justify Kevin Trenberth's assertion in October that in light of current warming trends, "the North Atlantic hurricane season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future."

"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming," he wrote. "My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."


Here's his full letter




Dear colleagues,



After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.



With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author — Dr. Kevin Trenberth — to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.



Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and other media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have the potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.



I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.



Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).



It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings thatthis will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.



My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadershipsaid that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual, even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author. I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity at this time. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.



It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights," as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC and has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation — though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements — would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.



I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.



Sincerely,



Chris Landsea


From Cato






But what really irked the Bush administration was Watson's behavior in Shanghai on Jan. 20, 2001. There the IPCC adopted its latest compendium on climate change. Watson approved the insertion of a new "storyline" (that's what the IPCC now calls its future projections) that predicted an absurd warming of 11°F for this century. Those of us in the scientific community who had reviewed the document never saw this outlandish projection because it was inserted after our peer review. John Christy, a scientist from the University of Alabama who developed the satellite temperature history (which shows very little warming), told a subsequent global warming hearing chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), "this is one forecast that isn't going to happen".

It's worth noting that the U.N. made 244 other temperature forecasts, all of them cooler than 11°F. But Watson pointed to the hottest one, telling the press that it "adds impetus for governments to find ways to live up to their commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases." Then in a remarkable insult to the American people, Watson said, "A country like China has done more, in my opinion, than a country like the United States to move forward in economic development while remaining environmentally sensitive." This is nonsense. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Embassy in China reported that emissions had dropped "little, if at all," which should have been obvious to Watson, who could see the opaque air of Shanghai.



http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3449


Don't you love it when science is hijacked in the name of political agendas?






The IPCC claims to have carefully corrected the temperature records for the well-known problem of local ("urban," as opposed to global) warming. But this has always troubled serious scientists, because the way the U.N. checks for artificial warming makes it virtually impossible to detect in recent decades -- the same period in which our cities have undergone the greatest growth and sprawl.

The surface temperature record shows a warming rate of about 0.17 degrees Celsius (0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 1979. However, there are two other records -- one from satellites, the other from weather balloons -- that tell a different story. Neither annual satellite nor balloon trends differ significantly from zero since the satellite record started in 1979. These records reflect temperatures in what is called the lower atmosphere, or roughly between 5,000 and 30,000 feet.

[u] Four years ago, a distinguished panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a real disparity between the reported surface warming and the temperature trends measured in the atmosphere above. Since then, many investigators have tried to explain the cause of the disparity while others have denied its existence.


So, which record is right, the U.N. surface record showing the larger warming or the other two? There's another record, from 7 feet above the ground, derived from balloon data recently been released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In two research papers in the July 9 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, two of us (Mr. Douglass and Mr. Singer) compared it for correspondence with the surface record and the lower atmosphere histories. The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.'s hot-surface history.


This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and its vaunted climate models. That's because the models generally predict an increased warming rate with height (outside of local polar regions). Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. When this was noted in the first satellite paper published in 1990, some scientists objected that the record, which began in 1979, was too short. Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.'s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot.



http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2789





Check out this scorecard of the IPCC and its predictions of what was going to happen.


http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm


Travis provided me with this link a while back:


http://www.globalwarming.org/


We had a thread going where we discussed this very issue, and that came up.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats cool. Just read more articles by academics over politicians if you want facts. They don't publish shit by scientists who voice opinions and bias, at least not in a respected journal.

Ok, reality check here.

First, Academics can and are politicians. Secondly, you yourself are using information from a political group: The UN's IPCC!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Ok, reality check here.

First, Academics can and are politicians. Secondly, you yourself are using information from a political group: The UN's IPCC!


Okay, clarity check. If you read the remaining 2 articles I gave you reference information for, from peer reviewed journals, theres no way theres any political or bias in them. When I made that comment you quoted, I was referring to articles in journals by scientists or team of scientists, not comittee stuff.

The IPCC was a bad example. At least one person posting in this thread is willing to admit a mistake.

Did you find the other two sources? You asked for solid scientific data, and that was it. Post a reply on those when you're done reading them. You have a tendency to focus on one thing wrong/questionable that I say, then ignore everything else.

[MannyIsGod]

Okay, clarity check. If you read the remaining 2 articles I gave you reference information for, from peer reviewed journals, theres no way theres any political or bias in them. When I made that comment you quoted, I was referring to articles in journals by scientists or team of scientists, not comittee stuff.

The IPCC was a bad example. At least one person posting in this thread is willing to admit a mistake.

Did you find the other two sources? You asked for solid scientific data, and that was it. Post a reply on those when you're done reading them. You have a tendency to focus on one thing wrong/questionable that I say, then ignore everything else. I'll read the other 2 examples, but I think someone is one a bit of an ego trip.

CBF, you're not introducing me into the world of climate change and you're not the first person to admit you're wrong either. :lol

[thispego]

my ego is completely in check, thank you very much

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'll read the other 2 examples, but I think someone is one a bit of an ego trip.

CBF, you're not introducing me into the world of climate change and you're not the first person to admit you're wrong either. :lol

Well people admitting mistakes are few and far between around here, so I like to point out when I do that.

I know I'm ont introducing you to the world of climate change, which is why I cant understand you think humans are having no impact.

[MannyIsGod]

Well people admitting mistakes are few and far between around here, so I like to point out when I do that.

I know I'm ont introducing you to the world of climate change, which is why I cant understand you think humans are having no impact.
Well, perhaps due to studies such as these:



These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/

Now, the blog this is located in casts doubt on these studies, but that leads to doubt around both scenarios (greenhouse domintated global warming and solar based global warming).


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005)

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/05/01/wglob01.jpgRadcliffe on Sour power station with Dr Benny Peiser (inset). He disagrees with the pro-global warming lineA separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html


Also, many of the studies out there are started with an agenda to prove a corolation between the increase in tempature to increase in CO2. This describes that



The authors' interpretation of their model is indeed a possible one, but there are others as well. First of all, the model has been repeatedly "tuned" with various forcings in an attempt to explain the global temperature record of the last century. There is nothing inherently wrong with this strategy, but it must be kept in mind that how we think the climate system works is guided by the historical temperature record, and what we think has influenced it. Since we really don't understand how natural climate fluctuations (except for volcanic eruptions) influence that record, we are restricted to what we do understand: mankind's production of greenhouse gases and aerosol pollutants. The real climate signal we are interested in, a gradual warming from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, is dominated by a single mode -- an upward trend. We also know that carbon dioxide concentrations have similarly increased. Does this prove cause and effect? The assumption has been that there have been no significant natural long-term independent changes in clouds, water vapor, precipitation efficiency, deep ocean heat storage, or a variety of other known (or unknown?) processes that could affect global temperatures in a similar manner.



For instance, what if recent warming of the oceans is more due to a slight decrease in low clouds than to increased trapping of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases? Or what if a temporary change in the rate of heat exchange with the deep ocean has caused the recent warming of the upper layers of the ocean? There are surely other possibilities as well.


In summary, the recent study by Hansen et al. indeed presents one possible interpretation of the available evidence, but it is a very human-centric one that assumes that natural decadal- to century-scale climate fluctuations are not to blame for at least some part of what has been recently observed. Or, using the "smoking gun" metaphor, it isn't yet clear whether mankind is the perpetrator, Mother Nature is an accomplice, or vice versa.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/050305C.html

[MannyIsGod]

CBF,

Scan over this page. Some people think the sun might be able to contribute more to global warming than humans.

http://globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I didn't and can't read all of that right now, but it seems like it will come down to which scientist you personally agree with.

[NZHayden]

global warming is for real, about 5 years ago we visited the kiribati islands in the pacific (my mother is from there), two years later the high tide mark was 7 feet higher than when we last visited, kiribati's highest point in the country is 40meters, that just like over 100 feet.

[JoeChalupa]

I heard yesterday that the arctic ice is shrinking but I'm no scientist.

But I do believe in global warming.

[travis2]

I didn't and can't read all of that right now, but it seems like it will come down to which scientist you personally agree with.

How can that be??? I thought all scientists were pure of heart and apolitical and interested only in the truth of global warming?

Face it, CBF...the facts are that the jury is still out. I'm not saying there's not global warming going on...and I'm not saying there is. And if there is...it may be natural, or it may be man-made, or it may be a synergistic combination of both.

Don't know means don't know.

And if you don't think that politics doesn't affect research teams or journal pubs then you're fooling yourself badly. I wish to God it didn't because this subject really needs a thorough, unbiased approach...but for the most part, that's not happening. OK, maybe "the most part" may be a little bit of editorializing on my part...but I can definitely say the loudest voices have political motivations.

[SWC Bonfire]

I just saw a graphic on the weather channel stating that 2004 was the 9th coolest summer on record, and 2005 was only the 10th warmest summer on record.

We could be heading for another dust bowl - oh, wait, that means that it already happened back in the late 1920's-1930's. Was there global warming in the 1920's?

[SpursWoman]

I just saw a graphic on the weather channel stating that 2004 was the 9th coolest summer on record, and 2005 was only the 10th warmest summer on record.


Only the 10th? I would have thought for sure it'd be at least in the top 3....damn, it's been hot. :(

[mookie2001]

I'm with cbf
its like if I was talking about Wayne McGarity

[batman2883]

global warming huh....i dont like it

[xrayzebra]

Travis said:

"Face it, CBF...the facts are that the jury is still out. I'm not saying there's not global warming going on...and I'm not saying there is. And if there is...it may be natural, or it may be man-made, or it may be a synergistic combination of both."

Travis, there is global warming going on, every since the ice age. That is a fact. But we, the human race, didn't cause it. The sun or whatever else in nature caused it. And you know what? Nature could reverse itself and we could go back into the ice age. How many times have we read and supposedly learned that the artic was a tropical area at one time. Heck they even showed the leaves, or evidence thereof, of tropical plants. But what do I know. I just read the papers.

[thispego]

scientific journals, i need scientific jopurnals!!!

[Big Empty]

Im not one to mix disasters with politics. But the unprecedented hail storm last year and now the record rain fall and hurricane to hit texas this year gots me wondering if the warmer weather has attributed to the weather being more extreme. there has always been hail storms and hurricances, but not on steroids.

[spurraider21]

MannyIsGod

[SnakeBoy]

I miss Manny. He used to get so mad at articles about cold weather.

[monosylab1k]

:lol holy shit, Manny was a climate change skeptic?

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah actually. But I got a degree, and I'm halfway to a PhD now where I actively study ways to measure it's effects. I was convinced before I went back to school but I was basically had enough knowledge to think I knew better than I actually did when I was a skeptic. Honestly don't remember what led to my change in thinking but it's pretty damn clear what the evidence says when you actually look at the evidence.

[Mark Celibate]

Yeah actually. But I got a degree, and I'm halfway to a PhD now where I actively study ways to measure it's effects. I was convinced before I went back to school but I was basically had enough knowledge to think I knew better than I actually did when I was a skeptic. Honestly don't remember what led to my change in thinking but it's pretty damn clear what the evidence says when you actually look at the evidence.

Since you are more knowledgeable than I (grew up a weather geek but shifted gears once I got to college), how much of an impact do you think climate change had on Harvey?

I'm having a hard time finding a link between the two considering in 2005, I believe, we had three nasty hurricanes (Rita, Katrina, and Wilma) that all got to Cat 5 at some point whereas Harvey was technically only a Cat 4 at its strongest. It was the combination of Houston being caught up in the nasty NE quadrant of the storm, and the fact that it decided to move 1 mph to the East when it was raping us.

I'm genuinely curious what your thoughts are though

[spurraider21]

Since you are more knowledgeable than I (grew up a weather geek but shifted gears once I got to college), how much of an impact do you think climate change had on Harvey?

I'm having a hard time finding a link between the two considering in 2005, I believe, we had three nasty hurricanes (Rita, Katrina, and Wilma) that all got to Cat 5 at some point whereas Harvey was technically only a Cat 4 at its strongest. It was the combination of Houston being caught up in the nasty NE quadrant of the storm, and the fact that it decided to move 1 mph to the East when it was raping us.

I'm genuinely curious what your thoughts are though
It's always hard to pin a specific event on a long term climate shift

Though in warmer weather, there is more water vapor in the air, naturally. More potential for strong rains/floods

[MannyIsGod]

Since you are more knowledgeable than I (grew up a weather geek but shifted gears once I got to college), how much of an impact do you think climate change had on Harvey?

I'm having a hard time finding a link between the two considering in 2005, I believe, we had three nasty hurricanes (Rita, Katrina, and Wilma) that all got to Cat 5 at some point whereas Harvey was technically only a Cat 4 at its strongest. It was the combination of Houston being caught up in the nasty NE quadrant of the storm, and the fact that it decided to move 1 mph to the East when it was raping us.

I'm genuinely curious what your thoughts are though

Climate change had a huge impact on Harvey and it's undeniable. I'm out of town and don't want to type a long message now so I'll just post this link which has some great scientists and their observations.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/31/what-do-we-know-about-relationship-between-climate/

[Aztecfan03]

Climate change had a huge impact on Harvey and it's undeniable. I'm out of town and don't want to type a long message now so I'll just post this link which has some great scientists and their observations.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/31/what-do-we-know-about-relationship-between-climate/

Too bad most of the article disagrees with your assessment of a "huge impact"

[Wild Cobra]

Climate change had a huge impact on Harvey and it's undeniable.

No true.

Any cyclical storm can stall. They just rarely do. Just happened a large one did.

Oh...

That paper by Mann is laughable. He didn't fact check, and neither did the peer reviewers.

[DAF86]

It's just common sense really. The more people and shit you get into a room, the hotter it gets. Why would it be any different with the World?

[TDMVPDPOY]

global warming and co2 emmissions scheme...who collects the funds and how is it distributed? lol illuminati bullshit Ponzi crap transferring wealth from poor to rich kents again...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

global warming and co2 emmissions scheme...who collects the funds and how is it distributed? lol illuminati bullshit Ponzi crap transferring wealth from poor to rich kents again...

In your own words explain how a carbon tax on mass CO2 producers is a transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

[MannyIsGod]

Too bad most of the article disagrees with your assessment of a "huge impact"

Even the most conservative of the scientists in the article talk about huge impacts. For instance, Landsea's notion of 2 extra inches of rain directly impacts thousands more homes in Houston through flooding. 2 inches is the difference between having no water in your home and having several inches in your home. 2 inches over a broad area when funneled into a drainage basin can be feet of flooding. And that's simply one aspect.

Ask someone who had never flooded before what they think about that. Ask someone who barely avoided being flooded how they feel about throwing a couple of more inches on the rain they got.

And honestly, Landsea is more than likely too conservative in his estimate. There were record high precipitable water measurements taken when Harvey came ashore. I had never seen a reading over 3 inches (or 2.5 inches for that matter) and yet a sounding taken at landfall showed 3.26 inches.

https://twitter.com/MesonetMan/status/901377687255752704

http://gizmodo.com/how-a-team-of-meteorologists-with-a-few-trucks-collecte-1798678986

I don't expect laymen to understand the context of this, but this is a reading that we've never come close to. This is a measure of the amount of water vapor in the atmospheric column, and directly shows that the atmosphere was holding more water than had ever been measured. So while yes, Harvey stalling as a major contributor to the flooding, this shows that even without slowing down Harvey was working within an atmospheric environment that had more water to be rained out than we've ever seen.

Furthermore, we don't need stalling storms to produce record flooding and we likely didn't here either. The Memorial day floods last year happened due to an immense amount of rain in a short period of time, for instance. The majority of the flooding in this situation occurred due to high rain rates over a short period of time on Saturday. There was a lot of rain that fell after that and made things worse, but that initial band had incredible rain rates and places got a foot of rain in a couple of hours. That has nothing to do with a stalled system but rather a system that is working with a) an atmosphere with incredible moisture content and b) a plentiful source of water vapor to recharge the atmosphere (the Gulf with incredibly high SSTs).

It's fairly impossible to be dismissive of the impact of climate change on the precipitation in this event but then again it's impossible to ignore all of the evidence that climate change exists and yet we have deniers in this nation so do with this information what you will.

[Wild Cobra]

Even the most conservative of the scientists in the article talk about huge impacts. For instance, Landsea's notion of 2 extra inches of rain directly impacts thousands more homes in Houston through flooding. 2 inches is the difference between having no water in your home and having several inches in your home. 2 inches over a broad area when funneled into a drainage basin can be feet of flooding. And that's simply one aspect.

The flooding occurs because the rate of precipitation exceeded the capacity of the storm sewers. Storm sewers should be built for such events, but to save money, they are only built to normal high events.



Ask someone who had never flooded before what they think about that. Ask someone who barely avoided being flooded how they feel about throwing a couple of more inches on the rain they got.

My daughter was flooded.

I blame city planning. Not nature, or AGW.

Think about how easy it is for them to rationalize their piss poor planing on greenhouse gasses rather than their responsibility.

Which is cheaper?

Building an adequate storm sewer system, or trying to reduce global greenhouse gasses?



I don't expect laymen to understand the context of this, but this is a reading that we've never come close to. This is a measure of the amount of water vapor in the atmospheric column, and directly shows that the atmosphere was holding more water than had ever been measured. So while yes, Harvey stalling as a major contributor to the flooding, this shows that even without slowing down Harvey was working within an atmospheric environment that had more water to be rained out than we've ever seen.

Probably, but keep in mind. Our records of such events are limited to a very short geological time frame.



Furthermore, we don't need stalling storms to produce record flooding and we likely didn't here either. The Memorial day floods last year happened due to an immense amount of rain in a short period of time, for instance. The majority of the flooding in this situation occurred due to high rain rates over a short period of time on Saturday. There was a lot of rain that fell after that and made things worse, but that initial band had incredible rain rates and places got a foot of rain in a couple of hours. That has nothing to do with a stalled system but rather a system that is working with a) an atmosphere with incredible moisture content and b) a plentiful source of water vapor to recharge the atmosphere (the Gulf with incredibly high SSTs).

Do you have any prediction of how much different these events would be if we didn't block natural historical flow channels with dikes and bridges? How about if we didn't cover more than 80% of the land with asphalt, concrete, and buildings which prevents ground absorption?

AGW is another convenient excuse for city planners to be incompetent at their jobs.



It's fairly impossible to be dismissive of the impact of climate change on the precipitation in this event but then again it's impossible to ignore all of the evidence that climate change exists and yet we have deniers in this nation so do with this information what you will.

Does that mean you don't believe in weather cycles in a climate system?

[byrontx]

Science is not something that you "believe" in. Science doesn't give a shit what you believe. Climate change is is established and has data to back it. You have facts to the contrary, produce it (allegories do not count for crap).

[byrontx]

Gulf of Mexico is averaging 2 degrees warmer than 30 years ago. This enabled Harvey to rebuild into a major storm quicker than would have been the case a generation ago.

[baseline bum]

Ah the age old debate of who to trust more about our climate: climate scientists or Republicans?

[UZER]

Science is not something that you "believe" in. Science doesn't give a shit what you believe. Climate change is is established and has data to back it. You have facts to the contrary, produce it (allegories do not count for crap).

You mean science like: eggs are good for, no wait, eggs are bad for you. Fat is good for you, no wait, fat is bad for you, no wait again, fat is good for you.

Scientist change their mind all the time. These are in the moment theories.

[byrontx]

Science will conform new facts. You have new facts regarding climate change, please share them with the 99% of scientists agree climate change is real and affected by human activity. If all you have is Fox News gibberish, go to sciencenews.com and educate yourself a bit.

[lefty20]

A tweet from POTUS will do the job.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

You mean science like: eggs are good for, no wait, eggs are bad for you. Fat is good for you, no wait, fat is bad for you, no wait again, fat is good for you.

Scientist change their mind all the time. These are in the moment theories.
Agreed. Not too long ago it was, margarine (with eliadic trans fatty acid) was considered much healthier than butter. And fat, rather than starchy carbs, were linked to obesity.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Lotta talk about semantics in this thread
MiG would rather talk pedantry than flatly admit he be wrong :lol

[spurraider21]

You mean science like: eggs are good for, no wait, eggs are bad for you. Fat is good for you, no wait, fat is bad for you, no wait again, fat is good for you.

Scientist change their mind all the time. These are in the moment theories.
Did you take a smallpox vaccine?

[Mark Celibate]

http://gizmodo.com/how-a-team-of-meteorologists-with-a-few-trucks-collecte-1798678986

I don't expect laymen to understand the context of this, but this is a reading that we've never come close to. This is a measure of the amount of water vapor in the atmospheric column, and directly shows that the atmosphere was holding more water than had ever been measured. So while yes, Harvey stalling as a major contributor to the flooding, this shows that even without slowing down Harvey was working within an atmospheric environment that had more water to be rained out than we've ever seen.

Furthermore, we don't need stalling storms to produce record flooding and we likely didn't here either. The Memorial day floods last year happened due to an immense amount of rain in a short period of time, for instance. The majority of the flooding in this situation occurred due to high rain rates over a short period of time on Saturday. There was a lot of rain that fell after that and made things worse, but that initial band had incredible rain rates and places got a foot of rain in a couple of hours. That has nothing to do with a stalled system but rather a system that is working with a) an atmosphere with incredible moisture content and b) a plentiful source of water vapor to recharge the atmosphere (the Gulf with incredibly high SSTs).

It's fairly impossible to be dismissive of the impact of climate change on the precipitation in this event but then again it's impossible to ignore all of the evidence that climate change exists and yet we have deniers in this nation so do with this information what you will.

Thanks for this, that was a helpful article tbh.

Can confirm the link between the Memorial Day floods and the Saturday night flooding since I was here for both. The Saturday night bands were lethal and it had rain coming out at 5-6 inches per hour in some readings. Those definitely did the most damage and Sunday morning is when the nation woke up and saw Houston underwater. We had moderate/heavy rainfall over the next few days but those were just the cherry on top.

[MannyIsGod]

Lotta talk about semantics in this thread
MiG would rather talk pedantry than flatly admit he be wrong :lol

I was wrong.

[pgardn]

You mean science like: eggs are good for, no wait, eggs are bad for you. Fat is good for you, no wait, fat is bad for you, no wait again, fat is good for you.

Scientist change their mind all the time. These are in the moment theories.

What does this mean? Moment theories?

Darwin was wrong and/or lacked evidence concerning a number of aspects of natural selection as a driver of evolution. So is natural selection an "in the moment theory"? Refinement has occurred.

Newton's ideas about gravity are not exact enoug when dealing with big distance, does this mean his in the moment theory is wrong concerning gravity? Will apples now fall differently? Refinement has occurred.

This whole deal is partially a press problem, and then just flat out lies concerning science. When you look at food science and look at what the press presents realize two things:

1. The press likes wow findings. So they pick up on and rewrite articles in weak journals they know will have an impact. "Oh, pure bacon grease is NOW good for you, Fckn science"

2. Food science is biology, and biology is extraordinarily difficult to control and get as meaningful results as chemistry, and especially physics.

With Climate we have good ways of gathering data and weighing the meaning. When people who do this for a living tell us why they think that man made warming is occurring I'm going with it. WTF, would they all just collude and lie together? More notoriety comes from actually doing solid science that comes from refuting something that others missed. (And it also brings the delusional WC gadflys who think they are geniuses in an area they have taken up as a hobby.)



All of the denyial basically comes from the same idea. The earth atmosphere has warmed and cooled significantly before. So these little insignificant creatures CANNOT have a real role. TThis is just flat out WRONG. Many species have had huge effects on the earth that have been catastrophic for some species.

When photosynthetic organisms first evolved, the Earth had almost zero O2 in the atmosphere and anaerobic organisms ruled the earth. As O2 was produced and reacted with surroundings making oxides, there was little affect on the atmosphere. When the oxygen sink was full, the O2 was now free to hang about in the atmosphere. Now the earth has a full 20% level of O2! And the anaerobes, you gotta look in very special environments to find them. Aerobic organisms rule as far as speciation and sheer numbers.

So BS to this notion we can't change or have little effect on what was already an Earth that already has undergone temperature changes. Ignorant Conservatives are conservative for a reason. The switch for a non changing world is stuck on matters that don't fit their worldview. Why don't they argue that water is not H2O? We have never ever directly seen a water molecule? A: It has little impact on their dogma.

[spurraider21]

Yeah actually. But I got a degree, and I'm halfway to a PhD now where I actively study ways to measure it's effects. I was convinced before I went back to school but I was basically had enough knowledge to think I knew better than I actually did when I was a skeptic. Honestly don't remember what led to my change in thinking but it's pretty damn clear what the evidence says when you actually look at the evidence.
so what you're really saying is you've been brainwashed by liberal institutions

[RandomGuy]

Scientific proof that it's more than just normal cycles of the Earth. Unfortunately, that will probably take several hundred years minimum to achieve....I'm not expecting to see the conclusion.

:fro

Looks like we are getting close. Googley boogley.

[MannyIsGod]

Man that shut you up real quick, cbf.

[lefty20]

A category 5 hurricane forming in the Pacific and heading directly to Bay area leading to the disappearance of 2 individuals known as cupcake and donkey.

[Cry Havoc]

Yeah actually. But I got a degree, and I'm halfway to a PhD now where I actively study ways to measure it's effects. I was convinced before I went back to school but I was basically had enough knowledge to think I knew better than I actually did when I was a skeptic. Honestly don't remember what led to my change in thinking but it's pretty damn clear what the evidence says when you actually look at the evidence.

What's good, man? What are you doing in the field these days?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

A category 5 hurricane forming in the Pacific and heading directly to Bay area leading to the disappearance of 2 individuals known as cupcake and donkey.

with sharks

[Spurtacular]

It's Monday, september 26th, (yes, september TWENTY SIXTH) and it's still in the triple digits, every day, for extended periods of time. Austin hit record highs BEFORE the 'cane started to affect us. Don't give me any of that "hurricane pushed warmer weather to us" bull shit, it's been this hot non stop since like May..

What is it going to take for people to believe Global Warming does exist?

Will people like joechhehehejaaam still insist global warming is a farse when fall and spring are non-existent here in Texas, and Winter lasts 2 months?
What will it take for you to finally believe in it? What will you do once you believe it exists?

:lmao Twelve years later and even libturds aren't calling it global warming. :lmao

[SnakeBoy]

:lmao Twelve years later and even libturds aren't calling it global warming. :lmao

:lol

It's Tuesday September 12th and it's 63 degrees

[UNT Eagles 2016]

:lol

It's Tuesday September 12th and it's 63 degrees

Normal variance.

It's going to be 94/75 next week in Dallas, probably more in SA. Just saying

As recently as Sept 2013, it was 106 degrees in Denton on September 30th (and most of early September as well it was around 107 degrees that year in Denton).

[UZER]

What does this mean? Moment theories?

Darwin was wrong and/or lacked evidence concerning a number of aspects of natural selection as a driver of evolution. So is natural selection an "in the moment theory"? Refinement has occurred.

Newton's ideas about gravity are not exact enoug when dealing with big distance, does this mean his in the moment theory is wrong concerning gravity? Will apples now fall differently? Refinement has occurred.

This whole deal is partially a press problem, and then just flat out lies concerning science. When you look at food science and look at what the press presents realize two things:

1. The press likes wow findings. So they pick up on and rewrite articles in weak journals they know will have an impact. "Oh, pure bacon grease is NOW good for you, Fckn science"

2. Food science is biology, and biology is extraordinarily difficult to control and get as meaningful results as chemistry, and especially physics.

With Climate we have good ways of gathering data and weighing the meaning. When people who do this for a living tell us why they think that man made warming is occurring I'm going with it. WTF, would they all just collude and lie together? More notoriety comes from actually doing solid science that comes from refuting something that others missed. (And it also brings the delusional WC gadflys who think they are geniuses in an area they have taken up as a hobby.)



All of the denyial basically comes from the same idea. The earth atmosphere has warmed and cooled significantly before. So these little insignificant creatures CANNOT have a real role. TThis is just flat out WRONG. Many species have had huge effects on the earth that have been catastrophic for some species.

When photosynthetic organisms first evolved, the Earth had almost zero O2 in the atmosphere and anaerobic organisms ruled the earth. As O2 was produced and reacted with surroundings making oxides, there was little affect on the atmosphere. When the oxygen sink was full, the O2 was now free to hang about in the atmosphere. Now the earth has a full 20% level of O2! And the anaerobes, you gotta look in very special environments to find them. Aerobic organisms rule as far as speciation and sheer numbers.

So BS to this notion we can't change or have little effect on what was already an Earth that already has undergone temperature changes. Ignorant Conservatives are conservative for a reason. The switch for a non changing world is stuck on matters that don't fit their worldview. Why don't they argue that water is not H2O? We have never ever directly seen a water molecule? A: It has little impact on their dogma.

So is it still called global warming? Or climate change?

[mookie2001]

Cbf 05 EXPOSED LOL

[spurraider21]

So is it still called global warming? Or climate change?
Why is the name so important to you?

The overarching theory is the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Global warming is one of the indicators of it

It's been called climate change going back as far as the 50's. There wasn't some liberal plot in the 2000's to replace global warming with climate change

[UZER]

Why is the name so important to you?

The overarching theory is the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Global warming is one of the indicators of it

It's been called climate change going back as far as the 50's. There wasn't some liberal plot in the 2000's to replace global warming with climate change

Because it was brought to the masses (in the 90s) as global warming with alarm bells ringing that within 20 years the earth as we know it would be destroyed. Then, when the earth wasn't destroyed, it was changed to climate change.

Now, either someone (the community) was purposely lying, or their calculations are just way off. Either of those choices isn't great.

[spurraider21]

Because it was brought to the masses (in the 90s) as global warming with alarm bells ringing that within 20 years the earth as we know it would be destroyed. Then, when the earth wasn't destroyed, it was changed to climate change.

Now, either someone (the community) was purposely lying, or their calculations are just way off. Either of those choices isn't great.
A) as I said, the scientific community has used the term climate change since the 50's. The names didn't "change" to global warming. It's almost like you ignored my last post completely. And have the scientists really dropped the contention that global warming is still occurring? No. Your point isn't really a point. It's a talking point.

B) what respected scientific periodical claimed the earth as we know it will be gone in 20 years?

[apalisoc_9]

The earth's been warming up for years now, it's really crazy to deny otherwise. This has been a trend since like the 60's.

A better question, to what extent does human activity contribute to global warming...?

It seems very minimal according to most research....The earth's been undergoing Warming and cooling phases for millions of years..

The truth is that Humans are delusional.

[spurraider21]

The earth's been warming up for years now, it's really crazy to deny otherwise. This has been a trend since like the 60's.

A better question, to what extent does human activity contribute to global warming...?

It seems very minimal according to most research....The earth's been undergoing Warming and cooling phases for millions of years..

The truth is that Humans are delusional.
Quality troll material. Targeting both sides of the aisle. Very efficient

[apalisoc_9]

Quality troll material. Targeting both sides of the aisle. Very efficient

the truth is never black and white.

Yes, the earth has been warming up but there isn't a conclusive evidence out there to suggest humans play a major role.

In fact, through time scientist have been proven wrong in so many occasions...Theyr'e humans too, not infallaible. So these Human blaming for everything that happens in earth that scientifc community bitches about in every opportunity is quite hilarious tbh.

[spurraider21]

Quality troll material. Targeting both sides of the aisle. Very efficient

[UZER]

A) as I said, the scientific community has used the term climate change since the 50's. The names didn't "change" to global warming. It's almost like you ignored my last post completely. And have the scientists really dropped the contention that global warming is still occurring? No. Your point isn't really a point. It's a talking point.

B) what respected scientific periodical claimed the earth as we know it will be gone in 20 years?

Cmon man. There were all kinds predictions out there. Im not going to go copy / paste articles and opinions. "Respected" is a pliable word. Anyone you want to be respected will be. Those you do not, won't.

And i never said climate doesn't change. Of course it does. It warms and cools. I just don't think humans are having the impact that is being sold.

[spurraider21]

Cmon man. There were all kinds predictions out there. Im not going to go copy / paste articles and opinions. "Respected" is a pliable word. Anyone you want to be respected will be. Those you do not, won't.
From a reputable scientific publication? As in a peer reviewed work, as opposed to climatestuff.blogspot.com


And i never said climate doesn't change. Of course it does. It warms and cools. I just don't think humans are having the impact that is being sold.I never said that was your claim (the earth isn't warming). But the word play between climate change and global warming is just a talking point and doesn't note any shift in the claims of the scientific community.

[MannyIsGod]

What's good, man? What are you doing in the field these days?

Nothing weather related. I work with remote sensing of snow and the cryosphere with mainly alpine snowpacks. I do some chasing in the Spring but that's not on a professional basis.

[pgardn]

So is it still called global warming? Or climate change?

Warming leads to climate change.

So whatever you like.

[spurraider21]

Warming leads to climate change.

So whatever you like.
Do you have a cold or are you sneezing?

[monosylab1k]

:lol

It's Tuesday September 12th and it's 63 degrees

LOL can't tell if this is trolling or botting.

[Cry Havoc]

Nothing weather related. I work with remote sensing of snow and the cryosphere with mainly alpine snowpacks. I do some chasing in the Spring but that's not on a professional basis.

Any good chases recently? I miss chasing. We finally got some lightning here in California and it scared the bejesus out of everyone. Lmao

[Cry Havoc]

Quality troll material. Targeting both sides of the aisle. Very efficient

[pgardn]

Do you have a cold or are you sneezing?

Aha!

Give me two choices without none of the above.
Im on to these guys mister.

[Wild Cobra]

The globe has been warming since the 1700's. What's there to deny?

[Winehole23]

‘If you don’t trust the thermometers, throw them out,” Hayhoe said. “All we have to do is look at what’s happening in nature.'https://www.apnews.com/c895b9ac7e4a4370953e51862285c2ce/Looking-for-signs-of-global-warming?-It%27s-all-around-you

[MultiTroll]

You climate deniers can seriously GFY's.
107 the forecast for inland San Diego this weekend.

Picked a thread with "Global Warming" in it.

[Millennial_Messiah]

You climate deniers can seriously GFY's.
107 the forecast for inland San Diego this weekend.

Picked a thread with "Global Warming" in it.
Happened all throughout my life, about once every 2 years on the west coast. It's not the norm but it happens. And the temps next week are forecasted to be average to below average. It all evens out in nature. #cyclical

[MultiTroll]

Happened all throughout my life, about once every 2 years on the west coast. It's not the norm but it happens. And the temps next week are forecasted to be average to below average. It all evens out in nature. #cyclical
Cool story bro.


In Livermore California, temperatures on Monday hit 116 degrees Fahrenheit (https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=RERMTR&e=202209060015&bbb=CCA?ftag=MSF0951a18) – the hottest day of all time, the service said. The previous record for Livermore was 108 degrees Fahrenheit in 1950. Kentfield also hit its highest temperature since 1950 at 107 degrees Fahrenheit. The San Francisco airport, Oakland Museum, Salinas, San Jose airport, King City, Redwood City, Napa, Gilroy and Santa Rosa, also hit daily records in the Bay Area.
The service also noted that "countless" sites hit temperatures above 110 degrees Fahrenheit, with several approaching 120. The afternoon temperatures in the Bay area were about 10 to 15 degrees above normal (https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=MTR&issuedby=MTR&product=AFD&format=CI&version=1&glossary=1?ftag=MSF0951a18) along the coast, and roughly 20 to 35 degrees above normal elsewhere.
Monday night brought little relief to the area with "oppressive overnight heat" staying in the upper 80s to around 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the National Weather Service said. Tuesday is expected to be even hotter as NOAA's Weather Prediction Center warns of the potential for "dozens of new daily high temperature records" across the U.S. West.
Central California also saw some record highs in several spots in the San Joaquin Valley as many other areas peaked at just under 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Fresno has a 50-50 chance of hitting 112 or more on Tuesday, which would be a monthly high (https://www.weather.gov/wrh/TextProduct?product=afdhnx?ftag=MSF0951a18) for the city since records began in 1887, the National Weather Service said. Hanford, Madera, Bakersfield and Merced could also set monthly highs.