Global Warming event...Sunday Night in Wisconsin.

[inconvertible]

Sunday @ 6:30pm tune in to FOX and you will be witness to the horrible effects of global warming. Green Bay, Wisconsin will be on display.....you will witness the horror of terrible sans storms, people dehydrating right in from of your eyes, and unbelievable temperature of 2degrees. :lol

[PEP]

and your phd is in?
Show me yours and I'll show you mine.... :)

[PEP]

Dont forget the global warming event held in Maryland on January 17th.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r9/PEP007/morewarming20005.jpg
It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation's toughest greenhouse gas control law.

Many of the protesters who endured the cold to chant "Stop Global Warming!" said they didn't think the snowfall conflicted with their message. :drunk

[Extra Stout]

It's surprising that somebody with a genius-level IQ like incontinent doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

That said... why hasn't the earth gotten any warmer in the last 10 years? Since 1998, global temperatures have plateaued, even declined a bit.

[pussyface]

this is a common error among widly ignorarant and uneducated global warming cynics.

scientists know that global warming is really "global climate change." this accounts for both extreme cold and extreme warm temperatures (if it is hotter in one spot on the planet, it will be colder and the opposite side)

so...extreme cold weather, as in Green Bay, actually bolsters the argument that climate change is real. you can go ahead and delete yr post and we'll move on

[PEP]

I believe in global climate change but not this man made global warming. Global climate change has been going on since the beginning of time and I got my phd from a cracker jack box.

[Extra Stout]

this is a common error among widly ignorarant and uneducated global warming cynics.

scientists know that global warming is really "global climate change." this accounts for both extreme cold and extreme warm temperatures (if it is hotter in one spot on the planet, it will be colder and the opposite side)

so...extreme cold weather, as in Green Bay, actually bolsters the argument that climate change is real. you can go ahead and delete yr post and we'll move on
You don't understand the difference between weather and climate either, which is pretty ridiculous, since you went so far as to call somebody else ignorant without having any idea what you yourself are talking about.

You can conclude nothing about global climate change simply because it's going to be cold in Green Bay tomorrow.

[inconvertible]

this is a common error among widly ignorarant and uneducated global warming cynics.

scientists know that global warming is really "global climate change." this accounts for both extreme cold and extreme warm temperatures (if it is hotter in one spot on the planet, it will be colder and the opposite side)

so...extreme cold weather, as in Green Bay, actually bolsters the argument that climate change is real. you can go ahead and delete yr post and we'll move on

no, you guys just changed the name when it suits you....500,000,000 years from now the earth will be swallowed by the sun.....so isn't this a moot point anyway?

If it were 70degrees in Green Bay then I would worry......but its not so STFU.


these green bay mid-winter games have been going on for 50 years and the records show no real climate change.....so what the hell kind of arguement do you have?

[pussyface]

no, you guys just changed the name when it suits you....500,000,000 years from now the earth will be swallowed by the sun.....so isn't this a moot point anyway?

If it were 70degrees in Green Bay then I would worry......but its not so STFU.


these green bay mid-winter games have been going on for 50 years and the records show no real climate change.....so what the hell kind of arguement do you have?

nobody changed the name. scientists have always understood that extreme heat on one side of the earth produces extreme cold on the opposite side.

when people like you and pat robertson point to extreme cold and say "see, no global warming," it is not to be taken seriously and is worthy of ridicule.

...by the way, i live in San Francisco and can't stand fucking environmentalists. They are lamest and most self-satisfied people on the planet. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but since I took science classes in college I have some knowledge of this subject.

[xrayzebra]

this is a common error among widly ignorarant and uneducated global warming cynics.

scientists know that global warming is really "global climate change." this accounts for both extreme cold and extreme warm temperatures (if it is hotter in one spot on the planet, it will be colder and the opposite side)

so...extreme cold weather, as in Green Bay, actually bolsters the argument that climate change is real. you can go ahead and delete yr post and we'll move on

You going to call someone Ignorant learn how to
spell it. Yeah climate change explains it all.....LOL

I'm still wondering how you explain the ice age(s) that
the earth has experienced and the warming afterwards.
It was the cotton pickin SUV's they drove during those
era's. I sometimes think God is trying to tell all you
non-deniers that you are full of it when he sends his
little cool events down, that you explain as warm events.

[BonnerDynasty]

This isn't what the scientists 2.5 billion years ago told me.

[spursfan09]

So are there people who actually don't believe the earth is warmer and we are the reason for it.

[Wild Cobra]

So are there people who actually don't believe the earth is warmer and we are the reason for it.
Absolutely. The Earth warms and cools in various cycles. Warmer a decade ago? Yes. Now, not so warm.

1) Since we have had satellites doing 24/7 data collection of the sun's radiation, the correlation with the suns output and global temperatures are proven to coincide with very high confidence. There are other less direct measurements that clearly support this also.

2) The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. It contributes to most of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and CH4, the common man made gasses are also percent in nature. There is a direct correlation with the intensity of these gasses with all life on the Earth. Not just mankind.

3) The ocean in the largest sink and source of CO2. If I remember right, it accounts for 93% of the CO2. As it increases and decreases in average temperature, it dramatically affects the atmospheric concentrations. The suns radiation changes and the earth orbital changes play a significant role here as the ocean absorbs more than 90% of the suns radiation that makes it to the surface of the water.

4) CO2 and other greenhouse gas changes in the atmosphere are not linear. At low percentages, they do play a significant roll. As they absorb the infrared that they convert to heat only at specific energy bands. If for example, 200 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs 80% of the possible energy it can trap, then doubling it to 400 ppm only traps another 80% of the remaining 20% for a total of 80% +(80% x 20%) = 96%. We are somewhere in the 90's% of what the current CO2 concentration can trap. It's more complicated than this simplistic explanation, but CO2 accounts for less than 20% of the greenhouse effect. The range is between 12% with a humid atmosphere to 14% with a dry atmosphere. I will consider the average of 18%. The greenhouse effect is about 32C. In other words, instead of an average 14C for our planet, we would have -18C with no greenhouse gasses. 18% of 32C is 5.76C that our low figure of 90% effective CO2 allows for. Therefore if we could get enough CO2 to trap 100% of the possible effect, we would have 6.4C total, or 0.64C more than today.

5) Back to the sun. The 11 cycle is rather insignificant, but it does have some effect. This cycle has a variation from the low to high radiation levels at about 0.1%. Seems so insignificant, and that is why so many dispute it. However, the earths average temperature with no energy from the sun would be about 200C colder. Therefore, a 0.1% variation accounts for 0.2C. The 11 year cycle is not the only cycle the sun goes through. It's other natural cycles and the earths orbital changes makes these variation exceed 1% since they both can easily exceed 0.5%. We can easily correlate more than 0.5C of the earths average change just from proxy readings of the sins radiation over the last few hundred years.

6) Proxies... These are normally levels of isotopes trapped in ice core samples, but there are other ways as well. Isotopes best measure the suns radiation changes because they change proportional to the suns output. C14 for example is N14 changed in the upper atmosphere by the radiation of the sun. The more intense the sun, the more C14 is made. Same with H2, O18, Be10, etc. Long term graphing of these isotopes levels fit the recorded temperature changes over the millennia's.

Need more?

Now if I made a minor error anywhere, I did do all that from memory. The numbers may be a small degree off, but the general concept is 100% sound.

[DarkReign]

Honestly, I am surprised so many people care about this "issue".

Its just another effective distraction topic tailored to the lowest common denominator audience that is the American public.

Notice how the "hot button" issue of the day requires neither knowledge or debate? Its a always a "for" or "against", a yes or a no.

Abortion
Climate
Immigration
War on Terror (my personal favorite to bring out the idiots)

They always appeal to the masses to take a side. The real problems of the day (economy, unemployment, globalization) go unmentioned because, you know, theyre kinda hard to explain and create a plan for fixing.

Way it goes, I guess.

[xrayzebra]

Honestly, I am surprised so many people care about this "issue".

Its just another effective distraction topic tailored to the lowest common denominator audience that is the American public.

Notice how the "hot button" issue of the day requires neither knowledge or debate? Its a always a "for" or "against", a yes or a no.

Abortion
Climate
Immigration
War on Terror (my personal favorite to bring out the idiots)

They always appeal to the masses to take a side. The real problems of the day (economy, unemployment, globalization) go unmentioned because, you know, theyre kinda hard to explain and create a plan for fixing.

Way it goes, I guess.

DR you had better care about it. Because, when you
have to start paying all those "carbon" taxes you most
certainly will care about it. Especially when it is
20 below there in Detroit and the "warmers" keep telling
you how those taxes will help cool the country.....yeah,
baby!
:drunk

[xrayzebra]

New Subject, but did you notice downtown Green Bay during
the game last night. You could have pull the trigger on a
double barrel shotgun and not have hit a soul. Deserted
wouldn't even describe it.......

[JoeChalupa]

I was watching the History Channel last night.
A program called "The Last Days on Earth" and the #1 reason was Global Warming. Pretty interesting stuff.
I do believe in Global Warming but I'm no scientist.

[inconvertible]

nobody changed the name. scientists have always understood that extreme heat on one side of the earth produces extreme cold on the opposite side.

when people like you and pat robertson point to extreme cold and say "see, no global warming," it is not to be taken seriously and is worthy of ridicule.

...by the way, i live in San Francisco and can't stand fucking environmentalists. They are lamest and most self-satisfied people on the planet. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but since I took science classes in college I have some knowledge of this subject.


you let the liberal non-"science" class mess with your head.

[xrayzebra]

I was watching the History Channel last night.
A program called "The Last Days on Earth" and the #1 reason was Global Warming. Pretty interesting stuff.
I do believe in Global Warming but I'm no scientist.


Yep, I watched part of that last night. Did you watch
the part about Yellow Stone National Park. Now that is
scary. Warming to the Nth with a bang..........

And tonight is who survives if I am not mistaken.....going
to watch that?

I may have my programs mixed up a little bit because
I was flippin thru the channels and there was one on
computers and artificial intelligence which pissed me
off and I switched it off.

But the bit about Yellow Stone I was already familiar
with and it is really almost unbelievable what could
occur. It would literally be the end of the U.S. if
it ever erupted as predicted.

[JoeChalupa]

Yep, I watched part of that last night. Did you watch
the part about Yellow Stone National Park. Now that is
scary. Warming to the Nth with a bang..........

And tonight is who survives if I am not mistaken.....going
to watch that?

I may have my programs mixed up a little bit because
I was flippin thru the channels and there was one on
computers and artificial intelligence which pissed me
off and I switched it off.

But the bit about Yellow Stone I was already familiar
with and it is really almost unbelievable what could
occur. It would literally be the end of the U.S. if
it ever erupted as predicted.

Yeah, I saw that part. I was just talking to the wife the other day about how I wanted to take the kids there. I guess I better plan to go soon. I'm pretty sure another catastrophe of epic proportions is bound to happen again and I think it just may be man made.
The part of the biological germ issue and how easy it could be for someone to unleash a germ that would wipe out millions. Scary shit indeed.
And yes, what would we do if if fell into the hands of terrorists?