Reply With Quote
i agree that the 2015-2016 el nino peak skews the numbers, so that peak should be disregarded. i disagree that disregarding that peak means we suddenly lose the warming trend.so you agree with me but you still want to argue about something
i agree that the 2015-2016 el nino peak skews the numbers, so that peak should be disregarded. i disagree that disregarding that peak means we suddenly lose the warming trend.
Where the did I say that?
in my first post on this matter, i specifically agreed about the 2015-2016 el nino peak skewing the results, and noted that the trend is still there.
when you replied, i assumed you disagreed with that point. my bad. when i see the temperature charts that all conveniently start in 1998, i jump to conclusions
The position of "my side" is and has been since I've been posting on this forum is that these debates over temperature graphs, or if a specific weather event is due to global warming are stupid as .in my first post on this matter, i specifically agreed about the 2015-2016 el nino peak skewing the results, and noted that the trend is still there.
when you replied, i assumed you disagreed with that point. my bad. when i see the temperature charts that all conveniently start in 1998, i jump to conclusions
I'm simple minded. That's what I've been told repeatedly by some posters. So with my simple mind I look at it like this...
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?...answer YES
Is atmospheric CO2 increasing?...answer YES
Are we (mankind) causing it?...answer YES
Are we (mankind) in immediate danger because of this?...answer NO
So what is a realistic long term solution to the problem?...answer ????????? this is where it gets difficult
what qualifies as immediate danger, though? my dads in his 50's and he doesn't give any s about effects of climate change because by the time we have significant issues he'll probably be dead or too old to be effected. so his solution? it, drill.
it's like flossing. dentists tell you that if you dont floss, your teeth will get ed up. you dont floss for a few weeks. there aren't immediate effects. so does that mean you should tell the dentist to off and continue not to floss until you actually have the negative effect? by then it's too late. in the environmental issue, its the younger generations that will be stuck with the tooth decay because the older generation never felt the ramifications of not flossing
as for long term solutions... i think its fairly obvious that taking steps to reduce our impact on co2 levels should be a priority, and pointing a finger at china and saying "they're polluting a lot, so what difference does it make what we do" isn't solving anything either. but the free market isn't going to cut CO2 emissions... not by a longshot
The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7528b5f59521
I bet you've never stopped posting.
You brain is dumber than a hockey puck.
Your mom has baboon vagina.
At a time when sea ice should be expanding, it’s actually shrinking
The Arctic is heading into the dead of winter, and across a vast swath of territory, the polar night has descended, with 24 hours of darkness each day.
This is when temperatures should be plunging, and sea ice should be expanding rapidly.
Instead, temperatures are soaring, and sea ice is actually shrinking.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/im...9#.WDJrMrIrKpo
The planet is ed and un able.
the greenland shelf has been losing something like 300 billion tons per year recently... this isn't particularly surprising
First phase: denial
Second phase: yes, but we have nothing to do with it
Third phase: acceptance but we can't stop this change
Fourth phase: beneficial side effects
Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science'
Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.
“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.
“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said as Nasa provides the scientific community with new instruments and techniques, the elimination of Earth sciences would be “a major setback if not devastating”. “It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ of almost the pre-satellite era,” he said. “It would be extremely short sighted."
“We live on planet Earth and there is much to discover, and it is essential to track and monitor many things from space. Information on planet Earth and its atmosphere and oceans is essential for our way of life. Space research is a luxury, Earth observations are essential.”
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University, said Nasa has a “critical and unique role” in observing Earth and climate change.
“Without the support of Nasa, not only the US but the entire world would be taking a hard hit when it comes to understanding the behavior of our climate and the threats posed by human-caused climate change,” he said.
“It would be a blatantly political move, and would indicate the president-elect’s willingness to pander to the very same lobbyists and corporate interest groups he derided throughout the campaign.”...
NASA doesn't need to spend money doing what other agencies have money for. They need to focus on their primary mission.
Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science'
if anything we need more research on climate change to appease the "we dont have enough information" camp
and its not like cutting nasa's climate research funding is going to magically increase their funding in other areas anyway. if they're so serious about pushing space exploration, why not just increase nasa's funding? and dont tell me our inefficient government that spends way too much money cant muster up more for nasa if they really wanted to
its a joke of the policy that addresses climate change research like a child who covers his ears and says "LA LA LA i cant hear you LA LA LA"
and lmao at the executive branch arbitrarily (read: conveniently) determining what is "solid science" and what is "politicized science"
The Guardian sure took a lot of liberty with that headline seeing as they don't have a single quote from Trump stating that.
They quoted Bob walker, one of his advisors
That's my point. A campaign advisor saying that is not Trump saying that.
BigCarbon pays the Repugs to up govt.
Repugs will defund NASA, IRS, EPA, DoE, SEC, etc.
Repugs plan to up govt everywhere, everyway they can.
St Ronnie the diseased Useful Idiot announced the crystal clear VRWC ideology: "Government IS the problem"
Overgrown federal government IS the problem.
Yep.
It doesn't matter if it is tax and spend, or borrow and spend.
Both parties are destroying this nation.
Think about it people, they are buying your vote with everybody's money!
Everyone that worries about these same hot button issues election to election, and vote based on them... You are all at fault.
lol deflecting from the issue of the science
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions