Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Necrosis on April 02, 2013, 07:37:35 AM
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
still believe it doesn't exist?
when you have a group of people who deny evolution (a fact), global warming (a fact) and believe in sky gods (a fairy tale) it is a recipe for disaster.
-
its 30 degrees this am in NYC.
-
Surely there is proof connecting humans to climate change? Someone post it up? ???
-
How we know human activity is causing warming
We know the planet is warming — scientists have a clear understanding why
The theory of global warming is nothing new. The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea of global warming in 1896. Carbon dioxide, he knew, traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. He also knew that burning coal and oil releases carbon dioxide (CO2).
Arrhenius speculated that continued burning of coal and oil would increase concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, making the planet warmer. It's called the greenhouse effect.
What warms the Earth?
To determine what is causing today's rapid global warming, scientists have examined all the factors that can affect the Earth's temperature. There are essentially three factors that could be responsible for recent rapid global warming:
1.The sun
2.Earth's reflectivity
3.Greenhouse gases
Which of these is causing our current global warming?
It's not the sun: cause of little warming since 1750, none since 1980s
Ultimately, the climate system is powered by the sun: all else being equal, if you turn up the sun, you'll warm up the Earth. According to IPCC estimates, the sun has accounted for just a small portion of warming since 1750. A study of more recent solar activity has demonstrated that since about 1985 the sun has changed in ways that, if anything, should have cooled the planet—even as global temperatures have been rising. So the sun is not causing global warming.
It's not reflectivity: changes point to cooling, not warming
Around 30% of the sun's energy that reaches the Earth is reflected back into space. Changes in how much sunlight is absorbed, and how much is reflected, can affect global temperatures. Using satellite and land-based observations and computer models, scientists have calculated how Earth's reflectivity has changed over time.
These calculations suggest that human-produced particulate pollution, especially reflective sulfur-containing particles, have had a cooling effect on the climate, masking some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In fact, the slight decrease in global temperature between 1945 and 1975 was likely caused by a combination of rising particulate pollution and natural factors. Warming resumed after 1975 when industrialized countries began to clean up their particulate pollution while continuing to increase their greenhouse gas emissions.
As for human land use changes (primarily forest clearing for agriculture), they have on balance brightened the planet since 1750. This would have a cooling effect, yet we've seen warming. Changes in the frequency of volcanic eruptions, which can send reflective particles up into the stratosphere, also cannot explain the observed warming trend. So reflectivity is not causing global warming.
All the evidence points to greenhouse gases
That leaves the greenhouse effect as the only remaining scientific explanation for the rise in global temperatures in recent decades. We have direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere going back more than 50 years, and indirect measurements (from ice cores) going back hundreds of thousands of years. These measurements confirm that concentrations are rising rapidly.
Historic CO2 levels
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in measurable history, and predicted to increase dramatically this century. Source: GlobalChange.gov
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 390 ppm. That's 30% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
We also know the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil, because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique "fingerprint."
As far as scientists are concerned, it's case closed: human activity is causing the Earth to get warmer, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution from deforestation. All other scientific explanations for why the Earth is getting warmer have been eliminated.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=proof%20global%20warming%20is%20caused%20by%20humans&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edf.org%2Fclimate%2Fhuman-activity-causes-warming&ei=ZyBbUfdikcLgA_jugeAC&usg=AFQjCNEpjUaMO1cWH1e0fyF9bCW7TXdT0g
-
How we know human activity is causing warming
We know the planet is warming — scientists have a clear understanding why
The theory of global warming is nothing new. The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea of global warming in 1896. Carbon dioxide, he knew, traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. He also knew that burning coal and oil releases carbon dioxide (CO2).
Arrhenius speculated that continued burning of coal and oil would increase concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, making the planet warmer. It's called the greenhouse effect.
What warms the Earth?
To determine what is causing today's rapid global warming, scientists have examined all the factors that can affect the Earth's temperature. There are essentially three factors that could be responsible for recent rapid global warming:
1.The sun
2.Earth's reflectivity
3.Greenhouse gases
Which of these is causing our current global warming?
It's not the sun: cause of little warming since 1750, none since 1980s
Ultimately, the climate system is powered by the sun: all else being equal, if you turn up the sun, you'll warm up the Earth. According to IPCC estimates, the sun has accounted for just a small portion of warming since 1750. A study of more recent solar activity has demonstrated that since about 1985 the sun has changed in ways that, if anything, should have cooled the planet—even as global temperatures have been rising. So the sun is not causing global warming.
It's not reflectivity: changes point to cooling, not warming
Around 30% of the sun's energy that reaches the Earth is reflected back into space. Changes in how much sunlight is absorbed, and how much is reflected, can affect global temperatures. Using satellite and land-based observations and computer models, scientists have calculated how Earth's reflectivity has changed over time.
These calculations suggest that human-produced particulate pollution, especially reflective sulfur-containing particles, have had a cooling effect on the climate, masking some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In fact, the slight decrease in global temperature between 1945 and 1975 was likely caused by a combination of rising particulate pollution and natural factors. Warming resumed after 1975 when industrialized countries began to clean up their particulate pollution while continuing to increase their greenhouse gas emissions.
As for human land use changes (primarily forest clearing for agriculture), they have on balance brightened the planet since 1750. This would have a cooling effect, yet we've seen warming. Changes in the frequency of volcanic eruptions, which can send reflective particles up into the stratosphere, also cannot explain the observed warming trend. So reflectivity is not causing global warming.
All the evidence points to greenhouse gases
That leaves the greenhouse effect as the only remaining scientific explanation for the rise in global temperatures in recent decades. We have direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere going back more than 50 years, and indirect measurements (from ice cores) going back hundreds of thousands of years. These measurements confirm that concentrations are rising rapidly.
Historic CO2 levels
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in measurable history, and predicted to increase dramatically this century. Source: GlobalChange.gov
Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 390 ppm. That's 30% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
We also know the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil, because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique "fingerprint."
As far as scientists are concerned, it's case closed: human activity is causing the Earth to get warmer, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution from deforestation. All other scientific explanations for why the Earth is getting warmer have been eliminated.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=proof%20global%20warming%20is%20caused%20by%20humans&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edf.org%2Fclimate%2Fhuman-activity-causes-warming&ei=ZyBbUfdikcLgA_jugeAC&usg=AFQjCNEpjUaMO1cWH1e0fyF9bCW7TXdT0g
Interesting theory, far from concrete proof though.
-
Interesting theory, far from concrete proof though.
ah when a model or theory predicts change and that specific change comes (the facts) then strength is added to that theory. The fact is the climate is changing, it's getting warmer. 33 points out how dumb he is as he indicates the weather today, the difference between climate and weather is foreign to him. Back to the subject at hand, one prediction is that the ocean if GW is human induced would form a sink in specific areas, low and behold a huge heat sink has been found. The factors causing warming are clear and objective, we know 2 of the 3 aren't changing. Unless there are variables we know nothing of.
-
ah when a model or theory predicts change and that specific change comes (the facts) then strength is added to that theory. The fact is the climate is changing, it's getting warmer. 33 points out how dumb he is as he indicates the weather today, the difference between climate and weather is foreign to him. Back to the subject at hand, one prediction is that the ocean if GW is human induced would form a sink in specific areas, low and behold a huge heat sink has been found. The factors causing warming are clear and objective, we know 2 of the 3 aren't changing. Unless there are variables we know nothing of.
Lets have a tax and shut off the lights right?
-
ah when a model or theory predicts change and that specific change comes (the facts) then strength is added to that theory. The fact is the climate is changing, it's getting warmer. 33 points out how dumb he is as he indicates the weather today, the difference between climate and weather is foreign to him. Back to the subject at hand, one prediction is that the ocean if GW is human induced would form a sink in specific areas, low and behold a huge heat sink has been found. The factors causing warming are clear and objective, we know 2 of the 3 aren't changing. Unless there are variables we know nothing of.
Meh, still cant bring self to care.
-
Ban china !
-
Lets have a tax and shut off the lights right?
ya because that is sane ::)
you are stupid as all hell. With rising sea levels alone many atoll based countries will vanish. Only an idiot would think that trying to fix the problem is a negative.
-
ya because that is sane ::)
you are stupid as all hell. With rising sea levels alone many atoll based countries will vanish. Only an idiot would think that trying to fix the problem is a negative.
So again - tell me the solution you propose - a carbon tax and shutting off the lights right?
-
ConfusedPhoton says:
March 31, 2013 at 5:08 am
I see the Guardian has not taken up another prediction Myles Allen was involved in-
“Myles Allen first hit the headlines when a research project that he was involved with issued a press release (26th Jan 2005) predicting that temperatures could rise by 11° C even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is limited to only double the level before the Industrial Revolution.”
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=81
Strange how the press release does not seem to be available on climateprediction.net!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/global-warming-predictions-prove-accurate-guardian/
-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/global-warming-predictions-prove-accurate-guardian/
These claims raise a number of issues, but let’s start by looking at the actual numbers. Plotted below are the annual HADCRUT4 anomalies, (based on y/e August, in line with Allen’s workings).
(http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/image_thumb60.png?w=404&h=241&h=241)
The decade averages, as indicated by the red lines, have increased from 0.196C to 0.467C, so on the face of it, Allen’s prediction was spot on. But we need to delve a little deeper.
1) Let’s start by making a general observation. The Guardian suggest that the results of this one model somehow vindicate climate modelling in general. This is clearly a nonsense, as we will see later, as is their claim that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”
2) The article also talks about “the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s”. This is more nonsense – warming has not “slowed down”, it has stopped.
3) The first thing to notice about Allen’s prediction is just how low it was, compared with most other models. His forecast of 0.25C warming in 16 years equates to about 1.5C/century, well below other predictions. We’ll compare a couple later.
4) His starting point, the 10 years ending 1996 were, of course, affected by Pinatubo. The years 1992-94 were about 0.15C lower than the years before and after, so it is reasonable to assume the decadal average was about 0.04C lower as a result. In other words, about a sixth of Allen’s prediction of a 0.25C increase is no more than a rebound from Pinatubo.
5) As there was warming between 1986 and 1996, the temperatures at the end of that decade were already higher than the decadal mean. The average of 1995/96 was 0.07C higher than the decadal mean. In other words, part of Allen’s predicted increase between 1996 and 2012 had already occurred before 1996.
6) By the time the paper was written in 1999, Allen, of course, already knew that temperatures had climbed significantly since 1996, with the average of 1997 and 98 being 0.46C. Remember that his model predicted a figure of 0.45C for the decade to 2012, (0.196C + 0.250C).
I wonder why we were not told then that there would be no net warming for the next 13 years?
7) Although the model has, fortuitously, accurately predicted the temperature to 2012, this does not mean that it has been validated. The lack of warming for at least 10 years is a significant feature, and any model that fails to predict this cannot be said to be validated. It is ludicrous to posit that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”.
8) As I mentioned, many other models forecast much more rapid rates of warming. The Met Office’s decadal forecast in 2007, for instance, which predicted global temperatures in 2012 would be 0.60C higher than 1996.
(http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/image_thumb61.png?w=404&h=254&h=254)
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/met-office-decadal-forecast2007-version/
9) Or Hansen’s famous 1988 model, that predicted more than a degree of warming, even under Scenario B.
(http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/HansenvUAH.png)
-
Medieval Warm Period
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China,[1] New Zealand,[2] and other countries[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] lasting from about AD 950–1250.[10] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[11][12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Those darn knights, crusaders, and vikings must have caused this Medieval global warming with all their horse and cattle farting. >:(
-
I've read that naturally occurring c02 in the atmosphere fluctuates more than the total c02 emitted by man.
This exact same climate cycle has occurred repeatedly throughout Earths history. The Ocean has been much higher and lower.
The first thousand times this happened it was natural (because we couldn't possibly connect it to mankind), this time though.... ::)
-
Fifty-eight percent of Republicans believe that global warming is a “hoax,” :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Fifty-eight percent of Republicans believe that global warming is a “hoax,” :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
It is a hoax. Its fng cold in NYC today
-
Fifty-eight percent of Republicans believe that global warming is a “hoax,” :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Do you have something to add?
-
Medieval Warm Period
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China,[1] New Zealand,[2] and other countries[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] lasting from about AD 950–1250.[10] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[11][12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Those darn knights, crusaders, and vikings must have caused this Medieval global warming with all their horse and cattle farting. >:(
There are sea shells allover the midwestern United States. 1100ft above sea level... ;D
-
Do you have something to add?
need you say more, that about sums it up :D :D
-
need you say more, that about sums it up :D :D
The climate is always changing. Can you give me a perdiod of time in the earths' existence when the climate was perfect and not changing that we should try to get back to?
-
The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles. In order to understand the difference between natural cycle and human-caused global warming, one needs to consider changes in radiative forcing and how this affects systems on earth such as the atmosphere, vegetation, ice and snow, ocean cycles and related effects.
Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period.
The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle. The earths natural cycles, if human industrial output had not been involved, would have us near or slightly below thermal equilibrium, possibly slightly cooling.
In other words, if we were in the natural cycle without human influence, the forcing levels would likely be around 0W/m2 to -0.1W/m2. We are currently experiencing a positive forcing of around 3.6 to 3.8W/m2 and a human induced negative forcing of around 2W/m2. The resultant forcing, depending on current levels and the Schwabe cycle is around +1.6W/m2 above natural cycle as estimated.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=global%20warming%20is%20it%20a%20natural%20cycle&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fossfoundation.us%2Fprojects%2Fenvironment%2Fglobal-warming%2Fnatural-cycle&ei=IFZcUZT0GdK24AOAwIHoCg&usg=AFQjCNGMk3woZ3vD6FpWTGz9AofrduDPHA
-
The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles. In order to understand the difference between natural cycle and human-caused global warming, one needs to consider changes in radiative forcing and how this affects systems on earth such as the atmosphere, vegetation, ice and snow, ocean cycles and related effects.
Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period.
The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle. The earths natural cycles, if human industrial output had not been involved, would have us near or slightly below thermal equilibrium, possibly slightly cooling.
In other words, if we were in the natural cycle without human influence, the forcing levels would likely be around 0W/m2 to -0.1W/m2. We are currently experiencing a positive forcing of around 3.6 to 3.8W/m2 and a human induced negative forcing of around 2W/m2. The resultant forcing, depending on current levels and the Schwabe cycle is around +1.6W/m2 above natural cycle as estimated.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=global%20warming%20is%20it%20a%20natural%20cycle&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fossfoundation.us%2Fprojects%2Fenvironment%2Fglobal-warming%2Fnatural-cycle&ei=IFZcUZT0GdK24AOAwIHoCg&usg=AFQjCNGMk3woZ3vD6FpWTGz9AofrduDPHA
LOL...blacken700, below is the link to your article. No need to post that long arse link you got from googling the heck out of this to find what suits you. ;D
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle
-
Meh, ill give a fuck about global warming when conclusive evidence that proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that we are going to cause climate change on such a scale that it will wipe out ALL life on earth.
Until its proven that we are going to wipe out every living thing on earth, quite frankly I don't give a flying fuck.
-
Wasn't a coming ice age the big thing of the 80's/90's? Backed by Scientific evidence.... ;D
Same garbage, we'll be looking back at these idiots laughing.
-
Fifty-eight percent of Republicans believe that global warming is a “hoax,” :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
That just means that those 58% are more intelligent than you.
-
That just means that those 58% are more intelligent than you.
what it means is that most of the 58% are dumb bible thumpers like yourself :D :D :D :D
-
LOL...blacken700, below is the link to your article. No need to post that long arse link you got from googling the heck out of this to find what suits you. ;D
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle
i posted that article because it proves yours doesn't apply lol
-
Who gives a fuck about this? China and India wont do dick about it so why should we?
-
Who gives a fuck about this? China and India wont do dick about it so why should we?
great attitude. Shows a real high IQ here.
-
what it means is that most of the 58% are dumb bible thumpers like yourself :D :D :D :D
That just means that those 58% are more intelligent than you.
-
great attitude. Shows a real high IQ here.
True - i see through your emotionally driven pap.
This is a non-issue but to fleece liberal idiots from their $$$$
-
This is the hottest the planet has been...EVER!!!!!!!!!!
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
still believe it doesn't exist?
when you have a group of people who deny evolution (a fact), global warming (a fact) and believe in sky gods (a fairy tale) it is a recipe for disaster.
A recipe for disaster is left-winged treehuggers, who want to rob people of jobs and affordable energy, pushing this stupid crap......all the while, their favorite libs are rolling in ARMORED limos, flying in jumbo jets (which leave more "carbon footprints" than whole cities do), and selling their failing progressive TV networks to Arab bigwigs, steeped in EEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIL big oil.
-
i posted that article because it proves yours doesn't apply lol
What I posted is not an article. It's a historical fact.
I did read the article that you posted. Will you please explain in your own words how exactly it proves that what I posted before doesn't apply?
-
A recipe for disaster is left-winged treehuggers, who want to rob people of jobs and affordable energy, pushing this stupid crap......all the while, their favorite libs are rolling in ARMORED limos, flying in jumbo jets (which leave more "carbon footprints" than whole cities do), and selling their failing progressive TV networks to Arab bigwigs, steeped in EEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIL big oil.
LOL...exactly.
-
What I posted is not an article. It's a historical fact.
I did read the article that you posted. Will you please explain in your own words how exactly it proves that what I posted before doesn't apply?
read it again,if you can't figue it out,oh well :D :D :D
-
read it again,if you can't figue it out,oh well :D :D :D
Global warming is like the other leftist pet issues like gay marriage, animal rights, etc - emotional pap that nothing will ever change all while your kig messiah loots the teasury and hands over the keys to his cronies.
-
read it again,if you can't figue it out,oh well :D :D :D
Did you read it?
-
Global warming is like the other leftist pet issues like gay marriage, animal rights, etc - emotional pap that nothing will ever change all while your kig messiah loots the teasury and hands over the keys to his cronies.
the fact that you support unequal rights for certain people under the law based on sexual preference says a lot about you. I am sure you would have been against black equality too.
Let's get a few things straight. Global warming is occuring, this however occurs naturally. It however takes centuries for these cycles to occur, this is occuring in a 100 years.
Predictions of the human made model that have come true:
Oceans would become heat sinks
glacial loss
more extreme weather phenomenon (obvious as day)
more variable winters and summers, hotter summers and more extreme cold winters in moderate areas
northern latitudes will experience warming first (what do you know, Canada and russia are warming faster then lower latitudes (twice the rate))
the reason you should care is that many low lying coastal regions and atoll/island based countries could be wiped off the earth. Many species of animals will die, storms will worsen costing money and lives. The rising sea level is already becoming an issue in many places like the Maldives.
The idiocy on this board is unbearable, stop using your feelings to make decisions, allowing religious non-sense to dictate your intellect.
-
the reason you should care is that many low lying coastal regions and atoll/island based countries could be wiped off the earth. Many species of animals will die, storms will worsen costing money and lives. The rising sea level is already becoming an issue in many places like the Maldives.
Meh.
The world is constantly shifting, species are constantly dying off, new species appear, the land masses are constantly changing and shifting.
I fail to see why I should be so worried about shit that is going to happen either way.
-
And? Who cares? We cant do squat about it and will die regardless.
the fact that you support unequal rights for certain people under the law based on sexual preference says a lot about you. I am sure you would have been against black equality too.
Let's get a few things straight. Global warming is occuring, this however occurs naturally. It however takes centuries for these cycles to occur, this is occuring in a 100 years.
Predictions of the human made model that have come true:
Oceans would become heat sinks
glacial loss
more extreme weather phenomenon (obvious as day)
more variable winters and summers, hotter summers and more extreme cold winters in moderate areas
northern latitudes will experience warming first (what do you know, Canada and russia are warming faster then lower latitudes (twice the rate))
the reason you should care is that many low lying coastal regions and atoll/island based countries could be wiped off the earth. Many species of animals will die, storms will worsen costing money and lives. The rising sea level is already becoming an issue in many places like the Maldives.
The idiocy on this board is unbearable, stop using your feelings to make decisions, allowing religious non-sense to dictate your intellect.
-
Meh.
The world is constantly shifting, species are constantly dying off, new species appear, the land masses are constantly changing and shifting.
I fail to see why I should be so worried about shit that is going to happen either way.
You're supposed to be guilted into thinking your way of life is partially responsible for this. But, if you surrender and bow down to government, drive juice boxes disguised as cars, cough up more of your own money, etc., you can change the world........YAAAAAAY!!!!
-
the fact that you support unequal rights for certain people under the law based on sexual preference says a lot about you. I am sure you would have been against black equality too.
Let's get a few things straight. Global warming is occuring, this however occurs naturally. It however takes centuries for these cycles to occur, this is occuring in a 100 years.
Predictions of the human made model that have come true:
Oceans would become heat sinks
glacial loss
more extreme weather phenomenon (obvious as day)
more variable winters and summers, hotter summers and more extreme cold winters in moderate areas
northern latitudes will experience warming first (what do you know, Canada and russia are warming faster then lower latitudes (twice the rate))
the reason you should care is that many low lying coastal regions and atoll/island based countries could be wiped off the earth. Many species of animals will die, storms will worsen costing money and lives. The rising sea level is already becoming an issue in many places like the Maldives.
The idiocy on this board is unbearable, stop using your feelings to make decisions, allowing religious non-sense to dictate your intellect.
Looking on the bright side, large inhabitable areas in Canada, Russia and other places around the world will become habitable. People will be able to farm lands that couldn't be farmed before, and natural resources in these areas will be more easily extracted.
-
Going by those numbers... If I'm reading it right...
We have gained about 1 degree in about 100 years? That's pretty fucking stable if you ask me. I believe in climate change btw. I just don't believe we are significant enough to do it ouselves. It's quite narcissistic to think we can... I think the Earth can shrug us off like flies if it needed to.
Technology is what... Couple hundred years old? The Earth is how old? Just saying... Global warming alarmists have inflated egos. Climate change is due to the Sun... Hate to burst your " I'm so important I can affect the weather" bubble.
-
........................ .....
-
And you clowns think humans 2000 years from now are going to give one rats ass about anything done or not done now on this?
LMFAO
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
still believe it doesn't exist?
when you have a group of people who deny evolution (a fact), global warming (a fact) and believe in sky gods (a fairy tale) it is a recipe for disaster.
Next your gonna tell us the earth is more than 5000 years old. LOL. Socialist.
-
I've read that naturally occurring c02 in the atmosphere fluctuates more than the total c02 emitted by man.
This exact same climate cycle has occurred repeatedly throughout Earths history. The Ocean has been much higher and lower.
The first thousand times this happened it was natural (because we couldn't possibly connect it to mankind), this time though.... ::)
While I do believe that humans are putting far too much emphasis on themselves... We do always believe we are the most important thing around, does it really hurt to turn off the lights more?
-
You're supposed to be guilted into thinking your way of life is partially responsible for this. But, if you surrender and bow down to government, drive juice boxes disguised as cars, cough up more of your own money, etc., you can change the world........YAAAAAAY!!!!
holy hell is this the way some of you think? scary shit, you are one selfish asshole.
People live on those coastal regions, if we are contributing to loss of their homeland then we should attempt to do something about it. Every single scientific organization indicates the damage that is being done yet you assholes deny it and wear your ignorance as a badge of honor.
The levels of pollution in some major cities causes people to die, so maybe driving juice boxes could be helpful to others if you could put your own selfish desires for a fucking SUV that guzzles gas (a non-renewable source of energy) so you can look cool.
-
Going by those numbers... If I'm reading it right...
We have gained about 1 degree in about 100 years? That's pretty fucking stable if you ask me. I believe in climate change btw. I just don't believe we are significant enough to do it ouselves. It's quite narcissistic to think we can... I think the Earth can shrug us off like flies if it needed to.
Technology is what... Couple hundred years old? The Earth is how old? Just saying... Global warming alarmists have inflated egos. Climate change is due to the Sun... Hate to burst your " I'm so important I can affect the weather" bubble.
just stop talking, the sun is not the source of the heat, if anything the sun's cycle would have us in a cooling phase.
-
just stop talking, the sun is not the source of the heat, if anything the sun's cycle would have us in a cooling phase.
The bullshit you keep spewing on this is adding to the temp. Shut up
-
While I do believe that humans are putting far too much emphasis on themselves... We do always believe we are the most important thing around, does it really hurt to turn off the lights more?
what are you some pansy socialist hippy? turn on all the lights, fuck it, it's going to happen anyway.
-
The bullshit you keep spewing on this is adding to the temp. Shut up
like that bullshit article you once posted on GW that was known to be doctored and yet when confronted you said nothing.
read a book.
-
like that bullshit article you once posted on GW that was known to be doctored and yet when confronted you said nothing.
read a book.
which one ;D
-
like that bullshit article you once posted on GW that was known to be doctored and yet when confronted you said nothing.
read a book.
Globalist Warming is a hoax and a lie - there has been nothing whatsoever in the last 20 years at least. Its all another pet issue like animal rights, gay marriage, free mumia abu jamal, birth control, etc that gets the liberal crack pots in a tizzy
-
here asshats.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Let me highlight some of the facts.
1. Co2 levels are way above norm, way above what they have ever been, crossing a threshold that has never been seen.
2.global sea level has risen twice as fast this century as previous ones
3.the 20 warmest years have occured in the last 40 years
4.oceans are warming fast
5.ice sheets/artic ice is decreasing way faster then ever recorded.
6.Oceans are becoming acidic.
All these scientists working for the government, trying to make you buy a prius and wear hemp. Global consipiracy.
-
Globalist Warming is a hoax and a lie - there has been nothing whatsoever in the last 20 years at least. Its all another pet issue like animal rights, gay marriage, free mumia abu jamal, birth control, etc that gets the liberal crack pots in a tizzy
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :Dwait :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D fox news smart 333386 keeping the party of stupid strong
-
Globalist Warming is a hoax and a lie - there has been nothing whatsoever in the last 20 years at least. Its all another pet issue like animal rights, gay marriage, free mumia abu jamal, birth control, etc that gets the liberal crack pots in a tizzy
you come across as really unintelligent. You are a teamster like they want, I hate many things Obama has done, I take things on a case by case basis, you appear to be us against them with your ideologies, scary shit. You are the type of person to deny facts, like evolution, to maintain your belief, you are of no utility to society, nor others like you.
-
what are you some pansy socialist hippy? turn on all the lights, fuck it, it's going to happen anyway.
Well, I drive a sports car that gets shitty gas mileage. The least I can do is offset that with turning off the lights when I don't need them. :)
-
holy hell is this the way some of you think? scary shit, you are one selfish asshole.
People live on those coastal regions, if we are contributing to loss of their homeland then we should attempt to do something about it. Every single scientific organization indicates the damage that is being done yet you assholes deny it and wear your ignorance as a badge of honor.
The levels of pollution in some major cities causes people to die, so maybe driving juice boxes could be helpful to others if you could put your own selfish desires for a fucking SUV that guzzles gas (a non-renewable source of energy) so you can look cool.
Don't care.
-
here asshats.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Let me highlight some of the facts.
1. Co2 levels are way above norm, way above what they have ever been, crossing a threshold that has never been seen.
2.global sea level has risen twice as fast this century as previous ones
3.the 20 warmest years have occured in the last 40 years
4.oceans are warming fast
5.ice sheets/artic ice is decreasing way faster then ever recorded.
6.Oceans are becoming acidic.
All these scientists working for the government, trying to make you buy a prius and wear hemp. Global consipiracy.
Don't care.
-
holy hell is this the way some of you think? scary shit, you are one selfish asshole.
People live on those coastal regions, if we are contributing to loss of their homeland then we should attempt to do something about it. Every single scientific organization indicates the damage that is being done yet you assholes deny it and wear your ignorance as a badge of honor.
The levels of pollution in some major cities causes people to die, so maybe driving juice boxes could be helpful to others if you could put your own selfish desires for a fucking SUV that guzzles gas (a non-renewable source of energy) so you can look cool.
And you are a crackpot treehugger, whose sense has apparently left the building.
These "scientific organizations" have been exposed for the propaganda factories that they are, regarding this mess. Yet, you (in pure sheep fashion) keep chewing your nails to the quick. You're under the impression that driving your juice box and coughing up more of your own cash, to the very people that are taking your buffoonery to the bank, is saving the planet.
What a JOKE!!
It's even more laughable, considering that a 13-year-old kid found out global warming is a sham, simply by doing some research at a library. He even got a free iPad out of the deal, simply by telling his report to the nation's top radio talk show host.
Yet, we have crying sheep like you, blubbering about foolishness like this. BTW, I don't own nor do I want an SUV. In fact, I have my old beater with nearly 240,000 miles on it. It's paid in full, one less bill I have to pay so I can direct my money toward things like private school for my kids.
-
here asshats.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Let me highlight some of the facts.
1. Co2 levels are way above norm, way above what they have ever been, crossing a threshold that has never been seen.
2.global sea level has risen twice as fast this century as previous ones
3.the 20 warmest years have occured in the last 40 years
4.oceans are warming fast
5.ice sheets/artic ice is decreasing way faster then ever recorded.
6.Oceans are becoming acidic.
All these scientists working for the government, trying to make you buy a prius and wear hemp. Global consipiracy.
Try again, treehugging crybaby!
"Climategate" exposes global warming hoax
The hoax of man-made global warming is being exposed. Recent evidence of the doctoring of data by top climate scientists with political agendas to make it show warming that wasn't there and hide recent cooling is just the tip of the iceberg, one that is not melting as alarmists have been proclaiming. Let's review a few related facts.
Temperatures have always fluctuated naturally on this planet. Looking back over the past 100 years, the earth warmed from 1900 to around 1940. There was global cooling after that until the late 1970s.
It warmed again in the 1980s and 1990s, with that warmth peaking in 1998. There has been no warming since then even as CO2 has increased during the entire period. Eleven straight years of increasing CO2 and we're still cooler than 1998.
As of the 2009 growing season, the U.S. has now gone a record 21 straight years without a widespread drought in the Corn Belt. Soybean yields this year are easily a record. Corn yields were just shy of a record because it was actually too cool in the Upper Midwest. Climate models from man-made warming alarmists have consistently predicted increasing droughts along with yield-reducing excessive heat.
As a meteorologist who understands these models and appreciates our challenge to get the weather forecast right, it has amazed me that the public has been so easily bamboozled into believing the exaggerated 50-year cataclysmic climate forecasts.
Would you keep believing the same weatherman if he was wrong 11 forecasts in a row, then tried to sell you on his "long range" forecasts?
The problem is that the source of these errant forecasts and flawed interpretations are biased scientists, working with leaders of groups with the same thing in mind. Their goal is to have a significant influence on governmental policy as it relates to regulating carbon dioxide. A key element to success has been manipulated data and propaganda.
"Climate change" to "climategate"
Global warming has been twisted into a powerful issue that has attracted millions of loyal followers who believe the "debate is over," as Al Gore stated. Realizing that the warming had stopped after 1998, they even changed the name to "climate change."
"Climategate," as it's now being called, is just evidence of what some of us scientists have known. We have been witnessing an unprecedented, coordinated campaign to prove the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and blame greenhouse gases using "whatever works" strategies.
The urgency to pass costly legislation has to do with shoving it through while many still have the illusion that it's worth the hefty cost and that the planet is still warming. Ironically, cap and trade in full force and doing what they claim it will to the earth's temperature would make a difference of only a tenth of 1 degree over the next 50 years. The natural cooling since 1998 is far greater than that.
The 2009 hurricane season was quiet, the third in the last four years to be below preseason forecasts. This, after very active 2004, 2005 and 2008 seasons, shows more evidence of the natural variability. Atlantic basin activity is not determined by global temperatures, but from a natural 25-year cycle.
The sunspot count continues to be at the lowest level in a century. Looking back in the past, there appears to be a strong link between an inactive sun and a cooler earth. The sun is the source of incoming heat on this planet. It has cycles that we haven't been around long enough to study and understand clearly.
We do know with certainty that all of the many temperature fluctuations in the past were caused by natural cycles or events. These natural cycles will continue with or without human beings. That's why temperatures have gone up and down the past 100 years, even while man-made CO2 has gone up every year.
One legitimate C02 link: Plants
The biggest legitimate link involving CO2 is with plants. We know that increasing CO2 increases plant growth and crop yields. CO2 is essential to all life forms on earth. Treating it as pollution is about as absurd as believing we can predict our climate 50 years from now. We also know that the warmer our planet has been in the past, the more life it supported. The most devastating blows to creatures on earth from temperatures came from cold.
Powerful evidence of life doing better because of increased CO2 and warmth comes from digital satellite observations that were processed, refined and compared to changes of satellite-based maps of vegetation collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's series of AVHRR (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer) sensors. The digital satellite observations were processed into maps by NASA's Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies project.
The time frame for this comprehensive study is significant. It studied the years of greatest warming this century. The scientists concluded: "Between 1982 and 1999, 25 percent of the Earth's vegetated area experienced increasing plant productivity."
They assumed that "increasing CO2 caused plants to grow better" but "carbon dioxide fertilization couldn't be solely responsible for the change; climate change must be playing a role as well." Part of this was from more sunshine in the tropics and part of the increased plant productivity was from warmer temperatures in the high northern latitudes.
I believe in reducing all forms of real pollution, recycling, conservation and developing renewable energy. I also believe strongly in telling the truth. The truth is that CO2 is not pollution and that man did not cause much of the global warming that occurred in the last 100 years.
Don't believe the cleverly constructed presentations using distorted data from agenda-driven groups. They consider their hidden interests to be more important than the truth. They often use well-intentioned and credible people to help perpetrate the scam. Don't believe them.
We need to hold our policymakers accountable for their decisions, basing them on truth and the best interest of our country and planet. Don't believe me, either. Educate yourself on the subject, verify that everything stated here is the truth, and then believe it.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/dec/06/quotclimategatequot-exposes-global-warming-hoax/
-
you come across as really unintelligent. You are a teamster like they want, I hate many things Obama has done, I take things on a case by case basis, you appear to be us against them with your ideologies, scary shit. You are the type of person to deny facts, like evolution, to maintain your belief, you are of no utility to society, nor others like you.
LOL - i also believe the earth is flat, talk to snakes, believe the eart is 4k years old and that smoking is good too.
Fucking qwack
-
LOL - i also believe the earth is flat, talk to snakes, believe the eart is 4k years old and that smoking is good too.
Fucking qwack
BTW, the belief the earth was flat was a SCIENTIFIC consensus, not merely a religious one as the left-winged goofies like to spew.
-
BTW, the belief the earth was flat was a SCIENTIFIC consensus, not merely a religious one as the left-winged goofies like to spew.
THIS x1000000!!!
Don't second guess the mainstream scientific community!!
-
THIS x1000000!!!
Don't second guess the mainstream scientific community!!
Did I mention that "spontaneous generation" was once part of the SCIENTIFIC consensus, as well?
Same goes for anabolic steroids, having no effect on athletic performance.
-
reading these post proves the stupid party is well and strong :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D fox news smart
-
reading these post proves the stupid party is well and strong :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D fox news smart
Yeah - how is that Obama economy working out twink?
-
BTW, the belief the earth was flat was a SCIENTIFIC consensus, not merely a religious one as the left-winged goofies like to spew.
Its was a religious consensus not a scientific one.
-
Its was a religious consensus not a scientific one.
At the time, science and religion were quite synonymous.
-
And you are a crackpot treehugger, whose sense has apparently left the building.
These "scientific organizations" have been exposed for the propaganda factories that they are, regarding this mess. Yet, you (in pure sheep fashion) keep chewing your nails to the quick. You're under the impression that driving your juice box and coughing up more of your own cash, to the very people that are taking your buffoonery to the bank, is saving the planet.
What a JOKE!!
It's even more laughable, considering that a 13-year-old kid found out global warming is a sham, simply by doing some research at a library. He even got a free iPad out of the deal, simply by telling his report to the nation's top radio talk show host.
Yet, we have crying sheep like you, blubbering about foolishness like this. BTW, I don't own nor do I want an SUV. In fact, I have my old beater with nearly 240,000 miles on it. It's paid in full, one less bill I have to pay so I can direct my money toward things like private school for my kids.
oh so it's a massive multi-nation consipiracy? all the independent research by universities are also liberal melting pots of fraud. Did you just quote a 13 year old who presented no data as evidence of a sham? Are you serious or is this all the evidence you require? Probably is since you believe in sky daddies and support an institution who has successfully cornered the child rape market.
Just let the smart people handle this one, you keep believing science is a liberal wing while you enjoy your cell phone (quantum mechanics) and LCD tv.
-
At the time, science and religion were quite synonymous.
Championing a dark time in science because of religious influence as a win points out how crazy these folks are.
-
Try again, treehugging crybaby!
"Climategate" exposes global warming hoax
The hoax of man-made global warming is being exposed. Recent evidence of the doctoring of data by top climate scientists with political agendas to make it show warming that wasn't there and hide recent cooling is just the tip of the iceberg, one that is not melting as alarmists have been proclaiming. Let's review a few related facts.
Temperatures have always fluctuated naturally on this planet. Looking back over the past 100 years, the earth warmed from 1900 to around 1940. There was global cooling after that until the late 1970s.
It warmed again in the 1980s and 1990s, with that warmth peaking in 1998. There has been no warming since then even as CO2 has increased during the entire period. Eleven straight years of increasing CO2 and we're still cooler than 1998.
As of the 2009 growing season, the U.S. has now gone a record 21 straight years without a widespread drought in the Corn Belt. Soybean yields this year are easily a record. Corn yields were just shy of a record because it was actually too cool in the Upper Midwest. Climate models from man-made warming alarmists have consistently predicted increasing droughts along with yield-reducing excessive heat.
As a meteorologist who understands these models and appreciates our challenge to get the weather forecast right, it has amazed me that the public has been so easily bamboozled into believing the exaggerated 50-year cataclysmic climate forecasts.
Would you keep believing the same weatherman if he was wrong 11 forecasts in a row, then tried to sell you on his "long range" forecasts?
The problem is that the source of these errant forecasts and flawed interpretations are biased scientists, working with leaders of groups with the same thing in mind. Their goal is to have a significant influence on governmental policy as it relates to regulating carbon dioxide. A key element to success has been manipulated data and propaganda.
"Climate change" to "climategate"
Global warming has been twisted into a powerful issue that has attracted millions of loyal followers who believe the "debate is over," as Al Gore stated. Realizing that the warming had stopped after 1998, they even changed the name to "climate change."
"Climategate," as it's now being called, is just evidence of what some of us scientists have known. We have been witnessing an unprecedented, coordinated campaign to prove the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and blame greenhouse gases using "whatever works" strategies.
The urgency to pass costly legislation has to do with shoving it through while many still have the illusion that it's worth the hefty cost and that the planet is still warming. Ironically, cap and trade in full force and doing what they claim it will to the earth's temperature would make a difference of only a tenth of 1 degree over the next 50 years. The natural cooling since 1998 is far greater than that.
The 2009 hurricane season was quiet, the third in the last four years to be below preseason forecasts. This, after very active 2004, 2005 and 2008 seasons, shows more evidence of the natural variability. Atlantic basin activity is not determined by global temperatures, but from a natural 25-year cycle.
The sunspot count continues to be at the lowest level in a century. Looking back in the past, there appears to be a strong link between an inactive sun and a cooler earth. The sun is the source of incoming heat on this planet. It has cycles that we haven't been around long enough to study and understand clearly.
We do know with certainty that all of the many temperature fluctuations in the past were caused by natural cycles or events. These natural cycles will continue with or without human beings. That's why temperatures have gone up and down the past 100 years, even while man-made CO2 has gone up every year.
One legitimate C02 link: Plants
The biggest legitimate link involving CO2 is with plants. We know that increasing CO2 increases plant growth and crop yields. CO2 is essential to all life forms on earth. Treating it as pollution is about as absurd as believing we can predict our climate 50 years from now. We also know that the warmer our planet has been in the past, the more life it supported. The most devastating blows to creatures on earth from temperatures came from cold.
Powerful evidence of life doing better because of increased CO2 and warmth comes from digital satellite observations that were processed, refined and compared to changes of satellite-based maps of vegetation collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's series of AVHRR (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer) sensors. The digital satellite observations were processed into maps by NASA's Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies project.
The time frame for this comprehensive study is significant. It studied the years of greatest warming this century. The scientists concluded: "Between 1982 and 1999, 25 percent of the Earth's vegetated area experienced increasing plant productivity."
They assumed that "increasing CO2 caused plants to grow better" but "carbon dioxide fertilization couldn't be solely responsible for the change; climate change must be playing a role as well." Part of this was from more sunshine in the tropics and part of the increased plant productivity was from warmer temperatures in the high northern latitudes.
I believe in reducing all forms of real pollution, recycling, conservation and developing renewable energy. I also believe strongly in telling the truth. The truth is that CO2 is not pollution and that man did not cause much of the global warming that occurred in the last 100 years.
Don't believe the cleverly constructed presentations using distorted data from agenda-driven groups. They consider their hidden interests to be more important than the truth. They often use well-intentioned and credible people to help perpetrate the scam. Don't believe them.
We need to hold our policymakers accountable for their decisions, basing them on truth and the best interest of our country and planet. Don't believe me, either. Educate yourself on the subject, verify that everything stated here is the truth, and then believe it.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/dec/06/quotclimategatequot-exposes-global-warming-hoax/
YA courier press is known for there great science, who would believe NASA, amirite?
do you actually want me to rebutt this bullshit?
2012 for example was hotter then 1998, so that claim is a lie. Also, this has been the hottest decade in recorded history.
Climategate is nonsense, the data is there and the "statistical trick" is a well known trick used to combine different data sets to make the picture coherant you illiterate.
What other lies can you find?
-
Another issue is that you guys claim it is a liberal conspiracy, please post said evidence, because there is certainly evidence that the GOP are doing just that.
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/fullpage/fullpage.xhtml?dest=%2Fnews%2FLeaks-Show-Group-s-Climate-Efforts%2Fstory.xhtml%3Fstory_id%3D101005NX58SN
also it is a fact that the majority of denial groups (practically all) are funded by right wing corporations.
Bringing up science from the 1900's and mistakes doesn't prove your point either, claiming " look they made a mistake here, therefore they are wrong" is intellectually laziness.
-
Another issue is that you guys claim it is a liberal conspiracy, please post said evidence, because there is certainly evidence that the GOP are doing just that.
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/fullpage/fullpage.xhtml?dest=%2Fnews%2FLeaks-Show-Group-s-Climate-Efforts%2Fstory.xhtml%3Fstory_id%3D101005NX58SN
also it is a fact that the majority of denial groups (practically all) are funded by right wing corporations.
Bringing up science from the 1900's and mistakes doesn't prove your point either, claiming " look they made a mistake here, therefore they are wrong" is intellectually laziness.
Who gives a fuck? if you want snd your $$$. To al gore go right ahead assface.
-
Who gives a fuck? if you want snd your $$$. To al gore go right ahead assface.
I don't want to give my money to anyone, clean fuel sources which would reduce CO2 emissions make sense not for global warming only but for the future of our species.
-
Who gives a fuck? if you want snd your $$$. To al gore go right ahead assface.
Would this be the tree-hugging-yet-jumbo-jet-flying, armored-limo-riding, selling-his-pitiful-TV-network-to-EEEEEVVVVIIIILLLL-oil-barons-from-Al-Jazeera, rich-pay-their-fair-share-but-try-to-beat-the-clock-to-avoid-paying-Obama's-2013-tax-hikes.....AL GORE?
-
Would this be the tree-hugging-yet-jumbo-jet-flying, armored-limo-riding, selling-his-pitiful-TV-network-to-EEEEEVVVVIIIILLLL-oil-barons-from-Al-Jazeera, rich-pay-their-fair-share-but-try-to-beat-the-clock-to-avoid-paying-Obama's-2013-tax-hikes.....AL GORE?
nice deflection, but like always you live inside a lie.
Say Al Gore is a money whoring liar, what does that have to do with Global warming? it says nothing about it.
critical thinking isn't your strong suit.
-
nice deflection, but like always you live inside a lie.
Say Al Gore is a money whoring liar, what does that have to do with Global warming? it says nothing about it.
critical thinking isn't your strong suit.
PLEASE!! Gore is the poster boy of the tree-hugging global warming criers like you. Yet, when push came to shove and he had to unload that crappy left-wing network of his, he sold it to.........AL-JAZEERA, owned lock, stock, and barrel by those EEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIILLLLLL L OIL barons of the Middle East.
Common sense isn't your strong suit. The champion of environmentalists, bowing down to oil sheiks, to pocket $100 million....not to mention his speedy attempt to close the deal to avoid Obama's tax hikes.
-
PLEASE!! Gore is the poster boy of the tree-hugging global warming criers like you. Yet, when push came to shove and he had to unload that crappy left-wing network of his, he sold it to.........AL-JAZEERA, owned lock, stock, and barrel by those EEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIILLLLLL L OIL barons of the Middle East.
Common sense isn't your strong suit. The champion of environmentalists, bowing down to oil sheiks, to pocket $100 million....not to mention his speedy attempt to close the deal to avoid Obama's tax hikes.
again nothing you have stated has any impact on the validity of global warming. I know you like to skirt around the issue but your article has numerous downright lies and whether or not Al Gore is a crook does not matter.
-
again nothing you have stated has any impact on the validity of global warming.
Really?
What validity?
The article you posted is misleading and it has already been dismissed as junk science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/global-warming-predictions-prove-accurate-guardian/
These claims raise a number of issues, but let’s start by looking at the actual numbers. Plotted below are the annual HADCRUT4 anomalies, (based on y/e August, in line with Allen’s workings).
(http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/image_thumb60.png?w=404&h=241&h=241)
The decade averages, as indicated by the red lines, have increased from 0.196C to 0.467C, so on the face of it, Allen’s prediction was spot on. But we need to delve a little deeper.
1) Let’s start by making a general observation. The Guardian suggest that the results of this one model somehow vindicate climate modelling in general. This is clearly a nonsense, as we will see later, as is their claim that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”
2) The article also talks about “the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s”. This is more nonsense – warming has not “slowed down”, it has stopped.
3) The first thing to notice about Allen’s prediction is just how low it was, compared with most other models. His forecast of 0.25C warming in 16 years equates to about 1.5C/century, well below other predictions. We’ll compare a couple later.
4) His starting point, the 10 years ending 1996 were, of course, affected by Pinatubo. The years 1992-94 were about 0.15C lower than the years before and after, so it is reasonable to assume the decadal average was about 0.04C lower as a result. In other words, about a sixth of Allen’s prediction of a 0.25C increase is no more than a rebound from Pinatubo.
5) As there was warming between 1986 and 1996, the temperatures at the end of that decade were already higher than the decadal mean. The average of 1995/96 was 0.07C higher than the decadal mean. In other words, part of Allen’s predicted increase between 1996 and 2012 had already occurred before 1996.
6) By the time the paper was written in 1999, Allen, of course, already knew that temperatures had climbed significantly since 1996, with the average of 1997 and 98 being 0.46C. Remember that his model predicted a figure of 0.45C for the decade to 2012, (0.196C + 0.250C).
I wonder why we were not told then that there would be no net warming for the next 13 years?
7) Although the model has, fortuitously, accurately predicted the temperature to 2012, this does not mean that it has been validated. The lack of warming for at least 10 years is a significant feature, and any model that fails to predict this cannot be said to be validated. It is ludicrous to posit that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”.
8) As I mentioned, many other models forecast much more rapid rates of warming. The Met Office’s decadal forecast in 2007, for instance, which predicted global temperatures in 2012 would be 0.60C higher than 1996.
(http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/image_thumb61.png?w=404&h=254&h=254)
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/met-office-decadal-forecast2007-version/
9) Or Hansen’s famous 1988 model, that predicted more than a degree of warming, even under Scenario B.
(http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/HansenvUAH.png)
-
Really?
What validity?
The article you posted is misleading and it has already been dismissed as junk science.
do you actually want me to debunk that bullshit you just posted? do you actually believe this drivel. The basic science isn't even right.