|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution Denial usually includes the exclusion of the time line here. Climate change today is happening at a much more accelerated pace then before the industrial revolution. And I expect the denial to accelerate with that statement.  .8 degrees F since 1900.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,397 Likes: 440
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,397 Likes: 440 |
WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution Denial usually includes the exclusion of the time line here. Climate change today is happening at a much more accelerated pace then before the industrial revolution. And I expect the denial to accelerate with that statement. So, in other words: You can't explain why the earth has continually warmed and cooled, so you'll try to attack the person posting the fact as opposed to actually trying to explain why, prior to the industrial revolution, and millions of years prior, the earth was warming and cooling. Great debate tactic aside from the fact that it sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
The problem here is: the earth cooled and warmed prior to any man made co2 emissions. You're still moving the goal posts. You aren't explaining to me WHY CO2 levels have risen commiserate with the industrial era. Stop arguing about aggregate data and deal with the single variable first.
Perhaps if science could explain that, we'd be onto something. WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution?
Science has, but I don't get the impression you've cared to do research on your own. Otherwise you wouldn't be asking this question. Do you know that trees were the first living thing to cause a mass extinction event? When plants developed the ability to grow vertically into trees, it created a vast canopy that covered the ground. Yet there was nothing in the ecosystem to clean up the mess. Nothing would eat the tree bark. So the trees just died and rotted down where they laid, building up layer upon layer of organic material that would become coal. Then something amazing happened: The Siberian traps erupted in volcanic events. Sure you had some Co2 in the atmosphere, but the big problem was the coal built up over eons. It erupted enough sulfer and methane and CO2 to cause wild temperature swings. The majority of all life on earth died, including insects. So yes, there is prior art as it were where living creatures contributed to change the earths climate in drastic ways, on top of the usual solar activity/jetstreams/ocean currents/etc.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,884 Likes: 112
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 14,884 Likes: 112 |
You are attacking their Religion. They don't want to hear you. Yes, I know. The term 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind. When they're all freezing their butts off this winter, they'll blame it on warming. They know that term well in Texas and other southern states where they are flogging that horse sweating their butts off and watching crops die in their fields every summer while blaming it on some invisible god.
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.
– Jackie Robinson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
The sun. That great big, glowing, nuclear reactor in the sky. You do know the temperatures on Venus, and Mars rose the same percentage as ours during the same time frame, correct? Are we polluting that much of space too? What measurement are you using for Mars? Albedo calculations? Those have already been debunked as someone using "timing." They showed a brighter mars in 1977 and a darker one in 1999, when it was just dust moving around. Heck, Mars was brighter than the 1977 image in 2001! I haven't found research that shows Venus temperatures rising since the start of the industrial revolution. Source? Smoking guns back to you, let me know!
Check the Forbes article I posted earlier. In fact, I think it's in a few of them. Glad you guys at least look at the links, when I go through all the trouble to find the articles. The internet searches are horribly skewed towards agw.
Ahh, I was confused by the scales. You mentioned F, not C. Got it  It's such a shame that scientific data has been reduced to politics. But I await your peer research that demonstrates AGW is false. Seriously, I do await it. I'd love to be put at ease over this stuff
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
You are attacking their Religion. They don't want to hear you. Yes, I know. The term 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind. When they're all freezing their butts off this winter, they'll blame it on warming. They know that term well in Texas and other southern states where they are flogging that horse sweating their butts off and watching crops die in their fields every summer while blaming it on some invisible god. Their cotton yields look pretty much the same over the past several years. In fact, it looks like it went up in the hotter years. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Texas/Charts_&_Maps/zcott_y.htm I picked cotton because they grow it in the summer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
You are attacking their Religion. They don't want to hear you. Yes, I know. The term 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind. When they're all freezing their butts off this winter, they'll blame it on warming. Tell me about it. We've had this thread how many times and it's always the same loop: * AGW is maybe a thing - AGW is false * 97% of scientists agree - 97% figure is false * 97% figure is demonstrated to be true - Weather stations are on volcanoes and skyscrapers * Weather station location shown to not matter - Well the temperature difference doesn't matter * Temperature is not what AGW is about - Well what about temperature on mars * Temperature is not what AGW is about - Science is religion!!!111 And then we can reboot the whole thing in a few months when it next comes around! The bottom line is climate change research is done using the scientific method when skeptics do not do so. If you think CO2 isn't rising, show us the data from research papers. If you think rising CO2 is nothing to worry about , show us your experiments demonstrating where rising CO2 had no effect on living creatures. If you don't think temperatures matter, then shows us your experiments on mice living through 120C environments for long periods. Instead all it is is finger pointing, posturing, and trying to debunk sound scientific research. You don't prove a scientific finding wrong by going "nuh uh!" You prove a scientific finding wrong by performing an experiment that debunks it. So where are all the experiments that debunk AGW erik?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
So, in other words: You can't explain why the earth has continually warmed and cooled, so you'll try to attack the person posting the fact as opposed to actually trying to explain why, prior to the industrial revolution, and millions of years prior, the earth was warming and cooling.
Great debate tactic aside from the fact that it sucks.
LOL where did he attack you? 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,397 Likes: 440
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,397 Likes: 440 |
The problem here is: the earth cooled and warmed prior to any man made co2 emissions. You're still moving the goal posts. You aren't explaining to me WHY CO2 levels have risen commiserate with the industrial era. Stop arguing about aggregate data and deal with the single variable first. Nah, I think YOU are moving the goal posts. Why would I need to explain anything when the fact is, the earth has cooled and warmed since its existence? I know, I know....science wants to be able to prove everything, and at this point, the only "proof" science has is "hey, there's a lot of money involved if we say that THIS time the earth warming is due to co2". All those other times? Eh, ignore them.
Perhaps if science could explain that, we'd be onto something. WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution?
Do you know that trees were the first living thing to cause a mass extinction event? When plants developed the ability to grow vertically into trees, it created a vast canopy that covered the ground. Yet there was nothing in the ecosystem to clean up the mess. Nothing would eat the tree bark. So the trees just died and rotted down where they laid, building up layer upon layer of organic material that would become coal. On a side note, who buried the coal? Or, did nature do its "nature" thing, you know, like, the earth took care of stuff? Sorry to side track there.
Then something amazing happened: The Siberian traps erupted in volcanic events. Sure you had some Co2 in the atmosphere, but the big problem was the coal built up over eons. It erupted enough sulfer and methane and CO2 to cause wild temperature swings. The majority of all life on earth died, including insects.
And yet, here we are. People, trees, plants, even insects. But, if we just spend a lot of money, we'll solve the earths warming and cooling. Just need more money, right?
So yes, there is prior art as it were where living creatures contributed to change the earths climate in drastic ways, on top of the usual solar activity/jetstreams/ocean currents/etc.
Wait - I thought trees did it the first time. Oh well, I suppose we could go back to the times when people had to grow their own food/raise their own food. We certainly don't need planes, or cars. Not even for business as there isn't any need what with the internet and all. And heating or cooling your home or place of business? Why? That just adds to global warming......which, in 20-50 years will be global cooling. Yeah, I'm being facetious, to an extent. The earth has warmed and cooled since forever. To think that we as people control it is foolhardy. I know, science wants to be able to explain everything. Yet we see yearly where science changes its mind. Fact: the earth warms and cools on its own cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
It's such a shame that scientific data has been reduced to politics. But I await your peer research that demonstrates AGW is false. Seriously, I do await it. I'd love to be put at ease over this stuff I posted a lot of it in this thread. The AGW argument has always been political, on both sides. Why is it only political when conservatives don't believe that crap? In a more conservative society, let's say JFK's era when it was 'don't ask what your country can do for you', I think they would see it as bunk. Hard core libs want everything free and taxes to go up to save a gay, communist seal, while conservatives think the government should leave us alone and the seal should save himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
Nah, I think YOU are moving the goal posts. Why would I need to explain anything when the fact is, the earth has cooled and warmed since its existence? Uhm, because I told you AGW is not about temperature but you keep arguing against AGW on the basis of temperature. That's pretty much the example definition of moving the goalposts. But nice attempt to tu quoque
I know, I know....science wants to be able to prove everything, and at this point, the only "proof" science has is "hey, there's a lot of money involved if we say that THIS time the earth warming is due to co2". All those other times? Eh, ignore them.
And lets keep the logical fallacy train rolling with some false cause! Because after all if people have put money forward to research something, it must be false! Unless it's perhaps from the Heritage foundation On a side note, who buried the coal? Or, did nature do its "nature" thing, you know, like, the earth took care of stuff? Sorry to side track there. The big problem is nothing was buried before the extinction event, because there was no creatures to digest and break down the organic material that would become coal. After the extinction event the remaining coal and byproducts were buried and became the stuff we dig up in coal mines... Given what happened with the Permian event with too much coal/Co2 burning and us digging up coal and burning it into CO2, it's possible that there is a bad link there
And yet, here we are. People, trees, plants, even insects. But, if we just spend a lot of money, we'll solve the earths warming and cooling. Just need more money, right?
Quote me where I said we needed to spend a dime on carbon credits or taxation to "fight" AGW. I think you'll find I'm very much against that. But you seem to think it impossible of someone to be complex enough to understand science and *ALSO* be against political tomfoolery.
So yes, there is prior art as it were where living creatures contributed to change the earths climate in drastic ways, on top of the usual solar activity/jetstreams/ocean currents/etc.
Wait - I thought trees did it the first time. Eh I shouldn't have put creature there, I meant the trees.
Oh well, I suppose we could go back to the times when people had to grow their own food/raise their own food.
We certainly don't need planes, or cars. Not even for business as there isn't any need what with the internet and all.
And heating or cooling your home or place of business? Why? That just adds to global warming......which, in 20-50 years will be global cooling.
Yeah, I'm being facetious, to an extent. The earth has warmed and cooled since forever. To think that we as people control it is foolhardy.
I know, science wants to be able to explain everything. Yet we see yearly where science changes its mind.
You definitely have a sect of folks (Greenpeace/Sierra Club/etc) that try to use bombastic language to scare people into taxing/carbon credits/etc. They have done more harm to climate change IMO than even skeptics would talking to people on the internet, because their shtick is so horrible that I routinely shake my head at them. But just because you have a small group trying to profit off of an event doesn't mean the event itself is false. There have been charities that have ripped off donors before for good causes, so should we not donate to charities? What about churches that have ripped off their flock? Should we not give money to churches ever?
Fact: the earth warms and cools on its own cycle.
Yes. And AGW is real as well. Correlation does not equal causation.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
I posted a lot of it in this thread. The AGW argument has always been political, on both sides. Why is it only political when conservatives don't believe that crap? In a more conservative society, let's say JFK's era when it was 'don't ask what your country can do for you', I think they would see it as bunk. Hard core libs want everything free and taxes to go up to save a gay, communist seal, while conservatives think the government should leave us alone and the seal should save himself. The articles you post fall into a few categories: - Some supposed person of power saying AGW is crap - Someone trying to prove an experiment wrong by nitpicking at the data instead of devising their own experiment. If you can't devise your own experiment to prove something wrong, you haven't proved it wrong. Until I can devise an experiment that shows objects fall toward outer space, I can't prove gravity wrong. Just because I say 9.8m/s^2 is wrong (and technically it is!) doesn't mean gravity is wrong. Until I can prove it wrong in a lab I've done nothing. Show me the lab results that show CO2 levels aren't being driven by industry or else you haven't done anything to "prove" AGW is wrong. And why are you trying to paint me as a hardcore lib now? For cripes sake I'm voting against all new taxes and even the marijuana bill next week because it's a monopoly. I must be libbing wrong. Once against there are logical fallacies all over this thread as we have now painted anyone who agrees with AGW research as liberal strawmen ready to vote for Obama's 3rd term. If it wasn't wet outside today I'd drive my 7.8MPG car around the block for fun. Oops, libbing wrong again.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
I posted a lot of it in this thread. The AGW argument has always been political, on both sides. Why is it only political when conservatives don't believe that crap? In a more conservative society, let's say JFK's era when it was 'don't ask what your country can do for you', I think they would see it as bunk. Hard core libs want everything free and taxes to go up to save a gay, communist seal, while conservatives think the government should leave us alone and the seal should save himself. The articles you post fall into a few categories: - Some supposed person of power saying AGW is crap - Someone trying to prove an experiment wrong by nitpicking at the data instead of devising their own experiment. If you can't devise your own experiment to prove something wrong, you haven't proved it wrong. Until I can devise an experiment that shows objects fall toward outer space, I can't prove gravity wrong. Just because I say 9.8m/s^2 is wrong (and technically it is!) doesn't mean gravity is wrong. Until I can prove it wrong in a lab I've done nothing. Show me the lab results that show CO2 levels aren't being driven by industry or else you haven't done anything to "prove" AGW is wrong. And why are you trying to paint me as a hardcore lib now? For cripes sake I'm voting against all new taxes and even the marijuana bill next week because it's a monopoly. I must be libbing wrong. Once against there are logical fallacies all over this thread as we have now painted anyone who agrees with AGW research as liberal strawmen ready to vote for Obama's 3rd term. If it wasn't wet outside today I'd drive my 7.8MPG car around the block for fun. Oops, libbing wrong again. I said 'hard core liberals'. I never called you one. The articles I post also have another category. They are immediately dismissed by those who don't want to even consider they might be wrong. I've read both sides of a lot of these studies, as agw seemed wrong to be from the beginning. AGW reads almost exactly as all those prophesies that the world would be flooded in 1999.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,813 Likes: 460
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 26,813 Likes: 460 |
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Nelly is actually one of the 3/100 scientists who don't believe in global warming. Bastardizing his message like this is pretty despicable even from tree huggers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
The articles I post also have another category. They are immediately dismissed by those who don't want to even consider they might be wrong. I've read both sides of a lot of these studies, as agw seemed wrong to be from the beginning. AGW reads almost exactly as all those prophesies that the world would be flooded in 1999. You got to show me some links to this other category. I decided to look at every link you posted in these four pages and found no evidence of this third category. They all devolved into either name calling or trying to disprove a study by nitpicking data that has been re-verified since. Not a single link you provided showcased the results of a scientific experiment that debunked the evidence of increased CO2 production being produced by man. Not a single link. The closest links you even got to a technical query was a LOLfest about arctic icecaps, which is hilarious for several reasons. AGW Skeptics always rail on and on about how climate change research is only 150 years old or so, yet the arctic ice cap gains some ice in a winter and all of a sudden it's "haha one year means forever!!" Saying 150 years is not enough time but 1 year is, is not science. It's not even very mathematical. It's FUD. That's all it is. The thing about science is you don't have to like it. You don't have to believe in it. But it's true, whether you want it to be or not. And nothing the AGW Skeptic community provides disproves the truth presented that mankind is producing excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Picking nits about temperature and arctic ice caps over a years time isn't even the same ballpark as atmospheric CO2. It's not even the same sport. Yet people are convinced that if they find a case where someone missed a variable, the entire theory is wrong. Creationists try the same "house of cards" attack on evolution and it's comical. Sure we might find a new fossil that explains a transition better than we did before. Sure we now think dinosaurs probably had feathers and not before. But to pick those nits and say it's proof that evolution is completely wrong is well... pleading ignorance. It expresses a desire to live in a world where one knows less than is possible. You don't have to agree with liberal plans to "combat" AGW. I sure don't. But to use that to "decide" you're against AGW and don't want to learn about it? It's pleading ignorance. I caution against doing such things.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
The articles I post also have another category. They are immediately dismissed by those who don't want to even consider they might be wrong. I've read both sides of a lot of these studies, as agw seemed wrong to be from the beginning. AGW reads almost exactly as all those prophesies that the world would be flooded in 1999. You got to show me some links to this other category. I decided to look at every link you posted in these four pages and found no evidence of this third category. They all devolved into either name calling or trying to disprove a study by nitpicking data that has been re-verified since. Not a single link you provided showcased the results of a scientific experiment that debunked the evidence of increased CO2 production being produced by man. Not a single link. The closest links you even got to a technical query was a LOLfest about arctic icecaps, which is hilarious for several reasons. AGW Skeptics always rail on and on about how climate change research is only 150 years old or so, yet the arctic ice cap gains some ice in a winter and all of a sudden it's "haha one year means forever!!" Saying 150 years is not enough time but 1 year is, is not science. It's not even very mathematical. It's FUD. That's all it is. The thing about science is you don't have to like it. You don't have to believe in it. But it's true, whether you want it to be or not. And nothing the AGW Skeptic community provides disproves the truth presented that mankind is producing excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Picking nits about temperature and arctic ice caps over a years time isn't even the same ballpark as atmospheric CO2. It's not even the same sport. Yet people are convinced that if they find a case where someone missed a variable, the entire theory is wrong. Creationists try the same "house of cards" attack on evolution and it's comical. Sure we might find a new fossil that explains a transition better than we did before. Sure we now think dinosaurs probably had feathers and not before. But to pick those nits and say it's proof that evolution is completely wrong is well... pleading ignorance. It expresses a desire to live in a world where one knows less than is possible. You don't have to agree with liberal plans to "combat" AGW. I sure don't. But to use that to "decide" you're against AGW and don't want to learn about it? It's pleading ignorance. I caution against doing such things. And if I believed everything AGW 'scientists' say, I should ask, 'why are there still ice caps'. None of the computer models have been correct with their data. None of their prediction have come true. Glaciers are growing, and are still there. Icecaps are growing and are still there. Great lakes ice is seeing all time highs. Storms have not destroyed the US. Polar bears are still alive. Weather stations have been proven to create faulty data due to their locations. Why do you still believe these people know what they're talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all? They'll claim victory, of course. Don't forget, we had 20 years to save our planet 30 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all? They'll claim victory, of course. Don't forget, we had 20 years to save our planet 30 years ago. Al Gore put solar panels on his house, problem solved.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 Likes: 116
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 Likes: 116 |
Man caused Global Warming is a wet cow Farce.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,946 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,946 Likes: 763 |
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all? They'll claim victory, of course. Don't forget, we had 20 years to save our planet 30 years ago. 30 years ago, CFC's and the Ozone Layer were the problem - threatening to plummet us into an Ice Age. They get rid of Aqua Net and big hair and now we're stuck with Global Warming. Coincidence? I think not.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 Likes: 116
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 Likes: 116 |
Pumpkin peril: Federal website's jack o'lantern warning cites climate change There’s good reason to be frightened of those jack o’lanterns on porches across America this week, according to the federal government, and it isn’t just candlelit, jagged-toothed grins. Pumpkins, according to the Department of Energy’s website, contribute to global warming by decomposing into methane, a harmful greenhouse gas the federal government says is 20 times as scary as carbon dioxide. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/...e/?intcmp=hpbt4
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
And if I believed everything AGW 'scientists' say, I should ask, 'why are there still ice caps'. None of the computer models have been correct with their data. None of their prediction have come true. Glaciers are growing, and are still there. Icecaps are growing and are still there. Great lakes ice is seeing all time highs. Storms have not destroyed the US. Polar bears are still alive. Weather stations have been proven to create faulty data due to their locations. Why do you still believe these people know what they're talking about? You using one year data sets to prove your "point" only proves you possess no understanding for what climate actually is. I'll give you a hint: climate is about longer data sets than one winter or even one year! Mind shattering news for you I know, but it's true! And once again you don't provide a rebuttal to man made CO2 emissions. Are you going to get to the meat of the topic or are you going to continue arguing about aggregate data sets that you don't appear to understand? I think I know the answer because something tells me you couldn't prove that mankind isn't increasing CO2 emissions against the existing data.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
Pumpkin peril: Federal website's jack o'lantern warning cites climate change There’s good reason to be frightened of those jack o’lanterns on porches across America this week, according to the federal government, and it isn’t just candlelit, jagged-toothed grins. Pumpkins, according to the Department of Energy’s website, contribute to global warming by decomposing into methane, a harmful greenhouse gas the federal government says is 20 times as scary as carbon dioxide. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/...e/?intcmp=hpbt4 Food/Organics in landfills is super bad because it never properly decomposes, it just gets more garbage dumped on top of it. I compost every bit of food that I don't eat such as rinds or in this case, pumpkin rinds
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,397 Likes: 440
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,397 Likes: 440 |
You using one year data sets to prove your "point" only proves you possess no understanding for what climate actually is. I'll give you a hint: climate is about longer data sets than one winter or even one year! Mind shattering news for you I know, but it's true!
And yet, over the millions of years the earth has been around, warming and cooling, scientists are saying the last 100 years is proof enough? 1 year, 100 years? Over millions of years?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all? What, the day after tomorrow movie isn't true life?  The 'we all die in 20 years' is baloney. However, there is some cause for concern due to how CO2/methane levels contributed to the great dying of the Permian extinction event. Imagine a world so hot that nothing could live in the equatorial latitudes. A world where 90% of all life died off. Current research places the timeline of the amount of time it took for the initial CO2 emissions to cause mass extinction at 2k-18k years. Other famous extinction events that were due to the world getting too hot include the triassic, toarcian, and the PETM event (which is a good comparison for CO2 levels and warming events). So while it is silly to think that we're all gonna die in 20 years, claiming that CO2 couldn't possibly cause a warmer earth when we have socmany examples in the past is right in the definition of insanity. If CO2 and warming occurred together every time in the past, why would today all of a sudden be different?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
And yet, over the millions of years the earth has been around, warming and cooling, scientists are saying the last 100 years is proof enough? 1 year, 100 years? Over millions of years?  No, science is looking through the very rocks of the earth itself when determining the relationship between warming and CO2 emissions, and the prior world events that it shared. Don't confuse certain data points as the entire picture of research.
Last edited by gage; 10/29/15 03:03 PM.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
And if I believed everything AGW 'scientists' say, I should ask, 'why are there still ice caps'. None of the computer models have been correct with their data. None of their prediction have come true. Glaciers are growing, and are still there. Icecaps are growing and are still there. Great lakes ice is seeing all time highs. Storms have not destroyed the US. Polar bears are still alive. Weather stations have been proven to create faulty data due to their locations. Why do you still believe these people know what they're talking about? You using one year data sets to prove your "point" only proves you possess no understanding for what climate actually is. I'll give you a hint: climate is about longer data sets than one winter or even one year! Mind shattering news for you I know, but it's true! And once again you don't provide a rebuttal to man made CO2 emissions. Are you going to get to the meat of the topic or are you going to continue arguing about aggregate data sets that you don't appear to understand? I think I know the answer because something tells me you couldn't prove that mankind isn't increasing CO2 emissions against the existing data. I have used multiple years in many different threads to prove my point. I have shown that co2 and heat have no correlation. If you remember elementary science class, you should know that co2 is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, so it would fall instead of rise in the atmosphere. That's huge problem #1 with agw, as that is supposed to be the greenhouse gas. Water vapor is more dangerous to the atmosphere for heat trapping. None of their predictions come true. I've seen better psychics than agw 'scientists'. Weather stations have been proven to sit on all concrete runways, in metal boxes, next to AC units, on blacktop surfaces, and all that data was used for their agw theory. If you average earth temperatures for the past 19 years, there has been no rise in temperature (and you guys keep telling me that one year is not climate). The largest investors in carbon credits are the same guys pushing this agenda. Is the world so lacking common sense that they won't even question this, because they heard the false stat, 97%?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,946 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,946 Likes: 763 |
Pumpkin peril: Federal website's jack o'lantern warning cites climate change There’s good reason to be frightened of those jack o’lanterns on porches across America this week, according to the federal government, and it isn’t just candlelit, jagged-toothed grins. Pumpkins, according to the Department of Energy’s website, contribute to global warming by decomposing into methane, a harmful greenhouse gas the federal government says is 20 times as scary as carbon dioxide. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/...e/?intcmp=hpbt4They've gone Full Retard. You should never go Full Retard.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 9,145 |
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all? They'll claim victory, of course. Don't forget, we had 20 years to save our planet 30 years ago. Al Gore put solar panels on his house, problem solved. As big as I hear that place was, ya never know. 
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM
my two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,397 Likes: 440
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,397 Likes: 440 |
The 'we all die in 20 years' is baloney. However, there is some cause for concern due to how CO2/methane levels contributed to the great dying of the Permian extinction event. Imagine a world so hot that nothing could live in the equatorial latitudes. A world where 90% of all life died off. Current research places the timeline of the amount of time it took for the initial CO2 emissions to cause mass extinction at 2k-18k years. Other famous extinction events that were due to the world getting too hot include the triassic, toarcian, and the PETM event (which is a good comparison for CO2 levels and warming events).
So while it is silly to think that we're all gonna die in 20 years, claiming that CO2 couldn't possibly cause a warmer earth when we have socmany examples in the past is right in the definition of insanity. If CO2 and warming occurred together every time in the past, why would today all of a sudden be different?
So, you just listed 4 different extinction events that happened prior to any industrial revolution events. Wow. You mean the earth is not controlled by man? Now, you want to say that man made emissions of co2 are the cause today, but earth made co2 was the cause before. Do we know that? Or, did the earth get a little too close to the sun? What are YOU doing to limit co2 emissions? As to your last sentence/statement: Good question. But it also begs the question: What turned the warming around? What caused global cooling?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 Likes: 116
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 Likes: 116 |
Food/Organics in landfills is super bad because it never properly decomposes, it just gets more garbage dumped on top of it. I compost every bit of food that I don't eat such as rinds or in this case, pumpkin rinds When I finish eating there is never anything left to compost. Later I heat my home with 98.6 degree Methane. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
I have used multiple years in many different threads to prove my point. For the arctic ice refreezing? Most of the FUD around that is spread over a single data point used to declassify an entire trend. I wonder why there isn't mention being made of other areas with ice loss, such as Greenland? I have shown that co2 and heat have no correlation. To argue that there is no correlation between CO2 and heat content is to argue that 2+2=5. If you remember elementary science class, you should know that co2 is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, so it would fall instead of rise in the atmosphere. That's huge problem #1 with agw, as that is supposed to be the greenhouse gas. Water vapor is more dangerous to the atmosphere for heat trapping. Elementary science is great! But we cannot use building block lessons as the sole purpose of knowledge. If you remember a later science lesson, you may have heard about this concept called a closed system. Sure CO2 will naturally fall (as will nitrogen) in a closed system because they are heavier than O2. Yet thanks to convection currents in our atmosphere, we have natural mechanisms to distribute gaseous molecules pretty easily, because all things considered, CO2 and N are pretty light. Heck even in the confined space, it's not like 100% of the CO2 settles at the bottom of say, a silo. You just have an exponential falloff the higher up you go in the closed system.
None of their predictions come true. I've seen better psychics than agw 'scientists'. Weather stations have been proven to sit on all concrete runways, in metal boxes, next to AC units, on blacktop surfaces, and all that data was used for their agw theory.
Once again, this is false. Aside from the fact that your assertion that literally every weather station is biased is wrong, 42% of city trends are cooler as compared to the countryside surroundings. Why? Because most city based temperature stations are carefully calibrated to counter urban heat island effect. If you average earth temperatures for the past 19 years, there has been no rise in temperature (and you guys keep telling me that one year is not climate). The largest investors in carbon credits are the same guys pushing this agenda. Is the world so lacking common sense that they won't even question this, because they heard the false stat, 97%? Ahh yes, the Ross McKitrick paper. He has been associated with lovely groups such as the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The same CEI who has their research papers debunked regularly. It's not science to try to create an experiment to fit a desired result, no matter how hard we sometimes want to try. You'd be better off talking about the 15 year pause, which was stated by the IPCC. You know, those evil people who have nothing better to do than to profit off of evil climate change scares. I wonder why they published the data. It couldn't be because they are scientists publishing results and findings. No. To you this must be a giant conspiracy. Well forgive me for not making a tin foil hat
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
So, you just listed 4 different extinction events that happened prior to any industrial revolution events. Wow. You mean the earth is not controlled by man? Now, you want to say that man made emissions of co2 are the cause today, but earth made co2 was the cause before. You are attempting to link false cause here. Just because CO2 levels rose before the age of man does not mean that it is not capable for man to contribute to CO2 levels.
Do we know that? Or, did the earth get a little too close to the sun?
Yes we do. We have the geologic record, ice cores, and numerous other mechanisms by which to measure CO2 density and concentration over time. Have you ever considered why we don't put lead in gasoline anymore? Have you ever looked at the levels of lead in the ocean from the time of the industrial age to the time we got rid of lead in most fuels? Mankind has been capable of changing the global environment before, so to assume it's impossible now is well, foolhardy.
What are YOU doing to limit co2 emissions?
This is just ad hominem arch. It's not really rude or mean, but it is all the same. You are posturing that my argument is invalid because I'm not doing enough to limit CO2 emissions. It's kinda funny considering I work from home and so don't use nearly the gas amounts other people do, but I'm definitely not perfect and I'm not saying we need to make drastic changes.
As to your last sentence/statement: Good question. But it also begs the question: What turned the warming around? What caused global cooling?
In the last extinction events it was running out of fuel. And you don't have to burn every last bit of fuel either. Every few weeks this summer I'd collect brush in the forest on my property and burn it up, so it wouldn't collect. It's also a good excuse to have a beer or two outside But not all of the fuel burned. Some of the fuel would get blocked by ash and even though it was very hot, it wouldn't burn at all. Next week I came out and there would be pretty good burnable wood, ready to be reset, and relit for the next go around. I just had to sift the ashes. Same thing with the prior extinction events. That's why we have the gas and oil deposits in the earth that we do. Then the CO2 levels would get lower as they got buried in the remaining exposed deposits, and off we are.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
When I finish eating there is never anything left to compost. Later I heat my home with 98.6 degree Methane. I heat my home similarly. I confess I can't eat used coffee grounds or apple cores. But they make fantastic topsoil!
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
I have used multiple years in many different threads to prove my point. For the arctic ice refreezing? Most of the FUD around that is spread over a single data point used to declassify an entire trend. I wonder why there isn't mention being made of other areas with ice loss, such as Greenland? Would you like to try the Greenland ice sheet again? Maybe you're working with old data, or maybe you've been mislead with false data. http://iceagenow.info/2015/01/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-fastest-rate-years-video/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
JC.
So Basically
1) We can all agree the earth's climate is changing, whether that be a large change or slight change, warming or cooling, it is changing.
2) We can all agree we should be good stewards of our planet, do what we can to clean the planet and the air we breathe. It is currently the only one we have to live on.
3) Whether climate change is man-made, man-contributed or just natural, has no bearing on the ability to accept #1 and #2.
We can all argue, debate, fight, kill each other over the reasons, causes and effects. But in the end, we should all be focusing on solutions that not only obtain their objective, but do so without upending our entire society abruptly, while spreading the responsibility across everyone.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 Likes: 116
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 Likes: 116 |
Taxpayer-backed solar plant actually a carbon polluter Even as the Obama administration announces another $120 million in grants to boost solar energy, new reports indicate a centerpiece of the administration's green-energy effort is actually a carbon polluter. Located in Southern California's Mojave Desert, the $2.2 billion Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System benefited from a $1.6 billion Energy Department loan guarantee, and a $539 million Treasury Department stimulus grant to help pay off the loan. Yet it is producing carbon emissions at nearly twice the amount that compels power plants and companies to participate in the state's cap-and-trade program. That's because the plant relies on natural gas as a supplementary fuel. According to the Riverside Press-Enterprise, the plant burned enough natural gas in 2014 to emit 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. But Ivanpah, while in the cap-and-trade program, is still considered a renewable energy source because it technically produces most its energy from solar. Built by BrightSource Energy Inc. and operated by NRG Energy, the Ivanpah project has been mired in controversy from the start. Taxpayer advocates object to the federal support. Environmentalists say it would hurt the endangered desert tortoise and lament that 3,500 birds were "fried" by the heat produced by the plant in its first year. But the natural gas factor raises the fundamental question of whether this plant -- and others -- are undercutting their own green energy gains by emitting carbon pollution in the process, while not producing anywhere near the level of electricity of a regular power plant. "This is a prime example of when good intentions go bad," said H. Sterling Burnett, a research fellow at the Heartland Institute. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/...r/?intcmp=hpbt3
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259 |
It's not the amount of ice that gets added that is the concern, it's the thaw rate. Greenland has been losing the equivalent weight of mt everest every year. One good winter isn't going to replace the 2000 gigatonnes of ice already lost since the turn of the millenium. For Greenland to replace that amount of ice loss in a winter would probably require nuclear winter style global conditions, which would be just as bad for us as extreme warming
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Exxon Knew About Climate Change
|
|
