the earth is warming..
does human activity make it worse?
some say there is evidence that it does..
some say humans do not affect warming in anyway...
some want to curb, what they believe, that is making the problem worse
others say there is a vast conspiracy to [insert blank]
The majority of the scientific community thinks we need to do something to stop it before it gets to late
others believe that there is nothing we can do for it so why bother..
now go back to playing stupid..
hot mess
Huffington Post adds more nuance:
NASA's cryosphere program manager, Tom Wagner, credited the power of satellites for observing the melt and explained to The Huffington Post that, although this specific event may be part of a natural variation, "We have abundant evidence that Greenland is losing ice, probably because of global warming, and it's significantly contributing to sea level rise."
Translation: "We know global warming is melting , just not this ."
That'll be a nice diversionary thread-killer.
150 years "on average" and glaciologist lady said "right on time." Perhaps she's familiar with the variances that comprise the 150 average and 123 years is within that range.
How could you possibly think this is helpful for your argument? Aren't you one of the ones that think global warming isn't happening?Huffington Post adds more nuance:
Translation: "We know global warming is melting , just not this ."
This is San Antonio and Austin from 2 different Landsat images from the 70s. One was taken in 73, the other in 79 so you can see the boundary between them if you look closely. The older images don't have all the bands and resolution found on the newer ones, but this will definitely still give you a good idea where the city boundaries where. If you look closely, you can make out certain roads and highways in SA.
Right now -- or, possibly not, depending on how big of a time sequence you examine to get your trend of warming or cooling.
And some say there's no conclusive evidence humans affect global climate.
Yet, other say, the prescription is worse than the disease. In order to reach the GHG output AGCC proponents say will reverse the warming -- just a little bit -- we'd have to revert to energy consumption levels not seen in about a century, right?
While others believe our time and money would be better spent discovering way to adapt to the climate we're given.
Go back to oversimplifying the debate.
The image quality kinda sucks. I'll see if I can upload them to a better site. I'm gonna finish on the newest images in a sec.
I wonder how the gravity changes from planetary alignments. Tidal forces do change play a role in geothermal activity, and Greenland used to be green.
Jesus ing christ.
See now, I know this may not be the cause. But for you to flat out laugh at the idea shows you are not scientific material.
Actually, in the next sentence he refers to anthropogenic global warming being responsible for the sea level rise lapping at Greenland but, that was the paragraph I wanted to reference.
I think the globe gets warmer and cooler.
I think, relative to how far back in the climate record you go, we can be said to be warming or cooling, right now.
I think the planet has been warming and cooling for a long time.
I believe the planet has been both much warmer and much cooler than it is right now or than it is likely to be in the foreseeable future.
I believe there is no conclusive evidence mankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.
I believe adapting to global climate change is much easier than changing the climate...particularly when the vast majority of emissions AGCC proponents claim are causing the change come from a country that isn't much interested in the circus.
That's what I believe.
How exciting.
No one told you to come into a landsat thread if you didn't want to see landsat images.
Do you know what anthropogenic means?
Does the planet get both warmer and cooler over time? By day? By month? By season? By year? By decade? By Century? By Millennia? By etc...?
If you were to graph a trend of our temperature, would it not trend warmer or cooler, depending on how far back in the temperature record you traveled to set the point from where you establish the trend?
Hasn't the planet been both warming and cooling for just about as long as it's been in existence? How many ice ages have there been? Warming periods between them?
Has the planet been much warmer and much cooler than it is right now and than it is predicted to be in the next 100 years?
As for conclusive evidence of anthropogenic causes of climate change, I rely on scientists that have stated there is none and that there is none because all the evidence advanced by the AGCC crowd is based on a model-based theory that is fundamentally flawed -- and will remain flawed and inadequate -- because it is incapable of modeling all the possible permutations of all the possible variables that occur to affect climate globally.
Finally, we've adapted before, to global climate change. We've never -- to my knowledge -- changed the global climate, especially intentionally and in a way we designed.
What's not factual?
In this context it's been used to describe man-caused climate change. Why?
There are about 10 years old, but the growth on them is still huge. SA has almost doubled with impervious land cover compared to the 70s. The Northside and West side are filled in. I gotta see if I can find some newer images but that will have to wait for another day.
Brother, you didn't answer the question. This is a rant followed up by more name calling. God bless
Man, if only science had a way of determining this. Like a formula or something.
I don't believe InRareForm identified it as a "landsat thread." I saw it as a thread that happened to use satellite imagery to show how much the planet has changed in 40 years.
Besides, it morphed into a climate change thread.
What's not factual?As for conclusive evidence of anthropogenic causes of climate change, I rely on scientists that have stated there is none and that there is none because all the evidence advanced by the AGCC crowd is based on a model-based theory that is fundamentally flawed -- and will remain flawed and inadequate -- because it is incapable of modeling all the possible permutations of all the possible variables that occur to affect climate globally.I can't say the rest isn't factual since most of it is made up of rhetorical questions but I can say the logic is beyond stupid.Finally, we've adapted before, to global climate change. We've never -- to my knowledge -- changed the global climate, especially intentionally and in a way we designed.
Hey, people have died before ergo OJ did not kill Nicole.
Oh you mean the OP was all about Landsat imagery? Sounds like a landsat thread to me. Of course it got derailed because you're an idiot but thats nothing new.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
