Reply With Quote
For all of you green koolaid drinkers, here is a list complete with corroborating links of all the things that have been caused by global warming.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Have fun!
The IPCC report might as well have been researched on Wikipedia for all the actual objective science it contained.
For all of you green koolaid drinkers, here is a list complete with corroborating links of all the things that have been caused by global warming.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Have fun!
LOL...
I have read the report.
They were careful to show the radiative forcing of the sun as "direct forcing." Well, the added heating adds to the feedback of the greenhouse gasses. Most of the added heat attributed to CO2 is because of the added solar input, increase the feedback.
Please show me where the IPCC report quantifies "direct" and "indirect" solar forcing. If the "indirect" is there, I missed it.
I say, as a matter of deceit, the intentionally left out the addition of following feedback systems. However, they are quick to attribute more warming of following feedback to CO2.
Can we have some consistency please, if you expect me to believe any of their sciences?
Well, that covers at least 80% of it.For all of you green koolaid drinkers, here is a list complete with corroborating links of all the things that have been caused by global warming.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Have fun!
But you are wrong. It's the alarmists that have faith in their viewpoint, with no credible science to back them up.
spoken like a true believer. Item #1 was acne.
The IPCC assigns 0.12 watts of DIRECT radiative forcing from changes in the sun's irradiance from 1750 to 2005:
Now if I take the NASA simplified Greenhouse Effect model, found in Wikipedia, and make changes for a 0.12 watt decrease for 1750, I get the following... A 0.93 increase if radiative forcing total!
Almost a factor of 8 times greater than the IPCC leads us to believe, all from a calculated 0.18% increase:
Maybe I should start using blue text at times?
spoken like a true believer. Item #1 was acne.
I thought it was obvious I was being silly about it.
The IPCC assigns 0.12 watts of DIRECT radiative forcing from changes in the sun's irradiance from 1750 to 2005:
Now if I take the NASA simplified Greenhouse Effect model, found in Wikipedia, and make changes for a 0.12 watt decrease for 1750, I get the following... A 0.93 increase if radiative forcing total!
Almost a factor of 8 times greater than the IPCC leads us to believe, all from a calculated 0.18% increase:
well duh.
Who was measuring solar radiation in 1750? Or in 1950 for that matter...
There is a science called "paleoclimatology," which uses various "proxy data" to determine past climates factors. See Lean 2004.
Here is that data graphed:
Yeah, affordable tertiary education for all is such a waste of money.
Since you don't even understand the very simplest thing about the science (ie. that we can use proxies to reconstruct climate over hundreds of thousands of years, and have already done so, and that's how we know this isn't a natural event; that there has been plenty of investigation into the sun's effect on the climate included in the reporting... you honestly think that any credible scientists would simply ignore the sun's influence on the climate? What sort of idiot are you?
The IPCC report might as well have been researched on Wikipedia for all the actual objective science it contained.), it's pretty clear you haven't read the IPCC reports. They are entirely based on peer-reviewed scientific literature.
How's that opinion of yours holding up?
Yeah, I'm just stupid since I don't trust the "proxies" used to prove global warming...Lets put a bunch of numbers in the computer and show a trend and then "lose" all our original data used to create the data points...but trust us...our intentions were good...we were just '"sloppy"....Yeah, affordable tertiary education for all is such a waste of money.
Since you don't even understand the very simplest thing about the science (ie. that we can use proxies to reconstruct climate over hundreds of thousands of years, and have already done so, and that's how we know this isn't a natural event; that there has been plenty of investigation into the sun's effect on the climate included in the reporting... you honestly think that any credible scientists would simply ignore the sun's influence on the climate? What sort of idiot are you?
How's that opinion of yours holding up?
uh huh
I may be stupid, but apparently I'm not the only one. Man caused climate change has NOT been proven and whether you want to admit it or not climate change legislation is dead as a dodo, at least in the US.
UPDATE 1-Texas to challenge US greenhouse gas rules
Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:35pm EST
Related News
By Ed Stoddard
DALLAS, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Texas and several national industry groups on Tuesday filed separate pe ions in federal court challenging the government's authority to regulate U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Texas, which leads U.S. states in carbon dioxide emissions due to its heavy concentration of oil refining and other industries, will see a major impact if U.S. mandatory emissions reductions take effect.
In December, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger human health, opening the door for the agency to issue mandatory regulations to reduce them.
Texas said it had filed a pe ion for review challenging the EPA's "endangerment finding" with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Texas has also asked the EPA to reconsider its ruling.
"The EPA's misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ," Texas Gov. Rick Perry said.
The National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Ins ute, and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association also said on Tuesday they filed a pe ion challenging the EPA in federal appeals court.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and U.S. iron and steel makers have also signaled they would file lawsuits.
Environmental groups said Texas should focus on building cleaner energy sources instead of filing lawsuits.
"Governor Perry should win an Olympic medal for taking the environment downhill," said Luke Metzger at Environment Texas. "Global warming is the greatest environmental threat facing Texas and the planet and Governor Perry's obstructionism puts the state at great risk."
Conservative Republicans like Perry have been sounding the alarm of job losses in the debate over regulating greenhouse gas emissions -- a hot-button issue at a time of high joblessness and economic uncertainty.
The EPA is threatening to regulate carbon emissions if Congress does not. In June, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a cap and trade bill that would allow industry to buy and trade pollution permits, but the legislation has stalled in the Senate.
President Barack Obama would rather have Congress pass a bill that could provide more protections for industry while also controlling pollution. But he is using the threat of EPA regulation to encourage lawmakers.
Some prominent Senate Democrats have predicted that comprehensive climate control legislation, including a cap-and-trade mechanism, will not pass this year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
