Reply With Quote
As a joke, right? I only sort of understand what they're talking about to begin with.
DarrinS asks RG for "quan ative" information, then goads him by posting US temperatures? Something like that?
how about the 2 posts immediately preceding the one you pointed out. Seemed to me all three fit together in his argument.
As a joke, right? I only sort of understand what they're talking about to begin with.
DarrinS asks RG for "quan ative" information, then goads him by posting US temperatures? Something like that?
then he followed those up with the weather map. Looks like he's saying more than it's cold today so GW doesn't exist.
I couldn't believe he would be saying something that dumb, so I ruled it out to start with. Are you sure?
Showing the map was a joke.
A bigger joke is telling people that a trace gas that makes up less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere will push us past some ficticious "tipping points" that will flood our costal cities.
Oh, and by the way, humans only contribute about 3 percent to that 0.04 percent in our atmosphere.
If we'd signed Kyoto, at a mere cost of 300 billion PER YEAR, maybe we could save humanity.
Bargain basement..If we'd signed Kyoto, at a mere cost of 300 billion PER YEAR, maybe we could save humanity.
Any chance it's gonna be accidentally beneficial in some way?
The answer to that question is yes, and Darrin is probably honest enough to grudgingly admit that, but WC is not.Bargain basement.
Any chance it's gonna be accidentally beneficial in some way?
Now ask him or WC to provide a source and reasoning for the cost that he picked, and ask him to explain how that cost was derived.
If he or WC, can't then they are as guilty as sucking up something without being skeptical as they say the "liberals" are.
I might not have the time to piss around with learning enough about climate science, but cost analysis is another matter.
i got the joke. winehole is just lost.Showing the map was a joke.
A bigger joke is telling people that a trace gas that makes up less than 4 one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere will push us past some ficticious "tipping points" that will flood our costal cities.
Oh, and by the way, humans only contribute about 3 percent to that 0.04 percent in our atmosphere.
If we'd signed Kyoto, at a mere cost of 300 billion PER YEAR, maybe we could save humanity.
Perhaps my guide led me somewhat further astray. But yes, I'm lost.i got the joke. winehole is just lost.
Looks like a lot of Americans are scared less of Global Warming.
http://people-press.org/report/485/e...olicy-priority
They list lobbyists as a higher priority.
Is that so unrealistic?They list lobbyists as a higher priority.
James Hansen's former NASA supervisor says that Hansen embarrassed NASA.
Look at the bio of this flat-Earther:
Subject: Re: Nice seeing you
Marc, Indeed, it was a pleasure to see you again. I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that Global Warming is man made. A brief bio follows. Use as much or as little of it as you wish.
John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Ins ute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).
As Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research. This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles. I hope that this is helpful.
Best wishes, John
It actually should be a higher priority because lobbyists are real.
Yeah. There's that.
Never did get an answer.
Funny how some people will piss and moan about other people taking things at face value, and when you point out their own cool-aid, they put their fingers in their ears and ignore you.
To believe in AGW, you have to believe the following are true:
1. The global temperature of the 1990's to present is remarkable and unprecedented.
2. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at unprecedented levels in history and are largely because of human activity.
3. There is a direct causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, i.e. increased CO2 results in an increased temperature.
If any of these are not true, then one would have to be skeptical of AGW. If ALL are untrue, then you'd have to be VERY skeptical of AGW.
By the way, CO2 concentration is currently at 383 parts per million. If the atmosphere was a gallon, then the total C02 would be about 0.29 teaspoons. The amount of C02 produced by human activity is about 3% of that, or 0.008 teaspoons.
Scary stuff
"But, if we don't spend the 20 gazillion dollars and increase controls over the populace...then we could all die.
Will you risk death...will ya?
Spend the money...and if we're wrong. Your only broke and in economic slavery. If we're right, your alive...and broke, and in economic slavery.
But, your alive...right?"
Fear is the biggest motivator, and best tool in any politician's or activist's pocket. Obama knows this well.
Oh well, I still have several can's of "The dry look" hair spray I've been hoarding since the 70's when they banned it cuz of the hole in the sky. When nobody's looking, I use 'em, then spray old freon cannister's in the backyard. Cools things off, and decreases the humidity so if I go outside, my hair still looks damn good.
Lemme know how that hole is doing. I don't wanna kill anyone y'know.
I just wanna be nice and cool...and have damned good looking hair.
Incorrect. This is a distortion of the science.
Incorrect. This is a distortion of the science.2. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at unprecedented levels in history and are largely because of human activity.
Correct. You got one out of three right. If you don't understand the theory you are supposed to be skeptical of, it makes it kind of hard to sift through the evidence, doesn't it?3. There is a direct causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, i.e. increased CO2 results in an increased temperature.
If any of these are not true, then one would have to be skeptical of AGW. If ALL are untrue, then you'd have to be VERY skeptical of AGW.[/QUOTE]
Also incorrect.
Cite a source for this.
Please cite a source for this cost.
Yes, Mann's hockey stick graph that filtered out the medieval warming period and turns random white noise into "hockey sticks" is a distortion of science. This has been completely discredited and should be a complete embarassement to the IPCC and Al Gore.
I agree there is a relationship. The ice core record has shown that when temperatures have risen, CO2 levels have FOLLOWED. It's the exact opposite relationship than the one put forward by AGW alarmists.
Given source does not outline the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by human activity.
It can be inferred from the data however,:Because the decay curve depends on the model used and the assumptions incorporated therein, it is difficult to specify an exact atmospheric lifetime for CO2. Accepted values range around 100 years.
Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration 283 ppm
Current tropospheric concentration 383.97 ppm
Given that we don't know exactly how much of that 100ppm increase is from natural and how much is from man-made activity from the given source, you can't really justify the statement that only 3% of the current concentration is from man-made sources.
The rate of change of concentration is unprecedented in the historical record however, and given that we haven't seen any sustained series of massive volcanological events in the last 100 years that might account for such an increase it is a reasonable assumption that a pretty high percentage of that 100ppm increase is due to burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years.
100ppm being roughly 25% of the current concentration in the atmosphere. If only 50% of that increase was due to human action, then this would imply that roughly 12% of current concentration is due to humankind's actions.
I have no real idea what the exact % is, but it would seem that 3% is probably a low-ball estimate, and given our rather recent massive e in CO2 emissions in the last 25 years, I would guess that if we are indeed responsible for most of this increase, that we will see concentrations continue to climb markedly.
All of this depends on the ability of the planet to absorb CO2 and the complex, but little understood mechanisms for this, of course.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
