Meteorologists believe global warming "scare" is a sham

[Roger Bacon]

LOL, studying meteors  

If you look at the dissolved CO2 from ice core samples from the poles for the past 10,000 yrs it is pretty clear.
It shows that the temp each season was pretty stable over the years. In the last 100 yrs as the CO2 levels raise so did the temp ( a lot).
We know what the temp was each past century due to the dissloved 0xygen atoms and % of each kind of isotope.
( * atmosphere temp = % of various Oxygen isotopes in the atmosphere)
Plot the temp vs CO2 data and you get a near perfect linear regression line fit.

When the conclsuion is this clear, i don't even know why ths up for debate any longer.
I don't debate glbal warning with many as it is settled science based on the data .
If they try and tell me glbal warning is a hoax, I quote the data conclusions above.
They often scoff at my data but come back wth some silly reply that makes no sense.
 Often they argue by making a point has nothing to do to refute the data I try to explain.

Most have no idea what the signifigance of the dissolved O2 isotopes mean . Many seem clueless when I mention
the analysis is done via gas chromatograph or Mass spec, etc.

Ths is like trying to debate baseball with someone who doesn't know how many strikes a batter gets

You're fairly intelligent, I can see why you educate seventh graders for a living now!



What percentage of C02 in the atmosphere is emitted by humans anyway?  

 

[Hypertrophy]

Lol Howard bringing science to show the retards! no one want to argue with Howard on a scientific basis?

Lol  So if we dont agree with you, we are retards. Brilliant show of confidence in your (and others on Getbig) ability to persuade people. Yeah - I know - this is GetBig and we are all retards. Just depends on who calls the other guy one first.

Id be more than happy to debate Howard on a scientific basis. "Global warming" aka "Climate change" "aka "If you don't agree with me you are a Neanderthal because I'm smarter than you are" is based on what many consider to be faulty science  all along. But, the argument about this goes  ad hominem within minutes, so its really an exercise in futility.

The history is that the climate has changed macroscopically many times since the earth formed. The trends and swings are so wide or long that once we realize something is happening, its about to change again anyways. By the way, if we were to all go green overnight, nothing would change climate wise within a few hundred years. Takes too long for the global physical chemical systems to react, and there are many other variables at play besides fossil fuel usage.

 And its impossible to "go green"  overnight anyways.( I work in the field of photovotaic cells and spend lots of time in Germany, the worlds leader in "green energy". At least they are realistic about how many decades this process will take, and the absolute limits of harnessing renewable energy sources)

It makes more sense to get off of, or reduce,  oil and coal consumption because of the  economic, health and political costs in using it, and the dependence on unstable sources of supply. Screw the global warming alarmists. All they do is inflame people, create new regulations and taxes that choke off innovation ( i work on a DOE project and trust me - they are not the people you want in charge of energy policy) and create polarization. Pay more attention to the economic mess we are heading into because of our dependence on black gold. Money talks, bullshit walks.

[Mjolnir]

The fact is if you don't agree then you are retarded and refuse to believe what is in front of you.  It is not up for debate any longer and where you work or what you do has absolutely no bearing on this.  If you have a peer reviewed paper you wish to present that the world hasn't seen then be my guest and post it on GB first.  The evidence is there both scientific and anecdotal (even in my own region where we once had 13 weeks of skiiable snow per annum there is now 2-5 due to climate change) and if you wish to support those who cherry pick certain parts of a study or certain statistics go ahead, but these people aren't credible.  Here's what other have to say:

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

[quadzilla456]

we obviously have done some damage to our environment/atmosphere. With our vehicles, factories (acid rain anybody), mining, dredging, building, wars, bomb testing (bikini island atoll and the latest nuclear meltdown), ranching, oil, etc. All these things were not going on, millions of yrs ago...
I don't think dinosaurs, nor the MegaFauna era had the capabilities to do what we do today.

Dinosaurs farts can only do so much.

The earth will be here long after humans. As George Carlin said the earth will shake us like a bad case of fleas. To reduce our impact on the environment we can start by reducing the population of the world humanely. Having a world population of 10 billion on a finite, smallish planet is a good idea .....  NOT!

And this is where our colored friends come in. You need to have less babies you're not going to invent much and will probably starve if you keep it up.

[Bad Boy Dazza]

Yes, the misconception about cholesterol (that we're just now debunking) is probably a good example.

Shit, for 30 years they made people afraid to eat eggs!

[Bad Boy Dazza]

Lol Howard bringing science to show the retards! no one want to argue with Howard on a scientific basis?

LOL Howard vs the meteorologists!  Strong science there!

[Roger Bacon]

LOL Howard vs the meteorologists!  Strong science there!

Come on, the man teaches children for a living!  He's as much of an authority as anyone!  

[cephissus]

Sources on any of that tbombz?

As far as I know, there's nothing concrete linking what appears to be a natural cycle of warming and cooling to our CO2 emissions.

of course there's nothing linking the two, by definition.  but pumping massive amounts of CO2 in the air is obviously going to increase the amount of radiation that gets "trapped" in the atmosphere.  this is pretty much obvious and indisputable.  the only question is how MUCH impact human interference has.  a lot?  not much?  who knows... maybe people in charge of studies.  maybe not (yet).  obviously, there's a lot of evidence that needs gathering.

[Radical Plato]

I find it hilarious, the world was so warm at points throughout history that you can dig up sea shells in the midwest.  Humans had nothing to do with the Earth warming and cooling thousands of times before, but now suddenly we do.

You do realise that many things have changed over the last few hundred years, and that the current situation we have isn't the way the world has always been.  We now have massive over population, burning of fossil fuels en masse and massive pollution as a result.  When their are 7 billion people on the planet all consuming as much resources as they can and contributing to pollution, it isn't hard to see the effect it can have on an environment.  If only a few people piss in the stream, it has little impact, if the whole town does, the stream becomes a sewer...

[Roger Bacon]

of course there's nothing linking the two, by definition.  but pumping massive amounts of CO2 in the air is obviously going to increase the amount of radiation that gets "trapped" in the atmosphere.  this is pretty much obvious and indisputable.  the only question is how MUCH impact human interference has.  a lot?  not much?  who knows... maybe people in charge of studies.  maybe not (yet).  obviously, there's a lot of evidence that needs gathering.

Of all C02 in the atmosphere, what percent was emitted by man?

I believe (could be wrong), that it's somewhere around 3%.

[cephissus]

So of all C02 in the atmosphere, what percent was emitted by man?

no idea, which is why i don't usually discuss "global warming".  i don't understand why so many people feel the need to "take a stand" on an issue when there is NO WAY they could possibly possess a fraction of the evidence needed to make a meaningful statement.

unless i'm completely in the dark somehow and the scientific community has come to an overwhelming consensus, which has then trickled down to the general public, i don't think the average joe has anything to stand on, one way or another.

[Roger Bacon]

i don't understand why so many people feel the need to "take a stand" on an issue when there is NO WAY they could possibly possess a fraction of the evidence needed to make a meaningful statement.

good point  



No one is doubting that there's a direct connection between total c02 and global temperature, the question is what effect do humans have on total c02 levels?  No question we emit too much c02, but in comparison to naturally occurring c02 (which appears to naturally fluctuate more than the total c02 emitted by mankind) is it just a drop in the bucket? 

 

[Radical Plato]

good point  

Until there is some kind of evidence that mankind has any effect on a cycle that has occurred naturally thousands of times before, I'm not buying it.

Beijing, undeniable evidence of Man's impact on the Environment.

[Roger Bacon]

Beijing, undeniable evidence of Man's impact on the Environment.

That's almost as scary as guns and dogs are!!  

[Radical Plato]

That's almost as scary as guns and dogs are!!  

Almost as scary as your Mum's herpes infested Snatch!

[Roger Bacon]

Almost as scary as your Mum's herpes infested Snatch!

very creative E-Kul!  

I'm not sure what a "mum" is though?

[bigcal]

These pricks cant even predict the weather on a day-to-day basis.  I dont believe anything these twinks have to say

[daddy8ball]

The sun does not have unlimited fuel. It will burn out one day. When the sun is gone, shit will go down hill on earth pretty quickly. How come no one is worried about that? 

[Radical Plato]

The sun does not have unlimited fuel. It will burn out one day. When the sun is gone, shit will go down hill on earth pretty quickly. How come no one is worried about that? 

Well, their is some concern about THIS amongst intellectuals, and those with tons of foresight have expressed humanity's eventual need to find an alternative home, but as of yet are limited by lack of knowledge and technology, but sure their concerned, but not too concerned because it is 5 BILLION YEARS AWAY!

[daddy8ball]

Well, their is some concern about THIS amongst intellectuals, and those with tons of foresight have expressed humanity's eventual need to find an alternative home, but as of yet are limited by lack of knowledge and technology, but sure their concerned, but not too concerned because it is 5 BILLION YEARS AWAY!

What's the difference between 5 billion years, or warming over the course of a hundred years? You're not going to be alive to witness either. So why worry about it?

[Radical Plato]

What's the difference between 5 billion years, or warming over the course of a hundred years? You're not going to be alive to witness either. So why worry about it?

Oh Yeah, that's right, no difference, let's just kill the children now.

[MikMaq]

I'm not doubting that the Earth is warming up, no one is.  Show me the proof humans have anything to do with it.

Get a fucking biology degree than if you can't figure it out.


Asking for proof of this, is like asking someone for proof that driving on a freeway is dangerous. We cannot predict the outcome, and no one is stupid enough to give it a try for kicks.

We might drive into a brick wall, we might plow into another car, or we might just be fine and go about our day.

The chance that things will be fine in no way out weights the fact that putting yourself in a situation that is totally unpredictable is absurdly dangerous.

Odd's are pretty dam high that high levels of CO2 with likely destabilize the fragile equilibrium that are planet lives under this is indisputable fact.

This equilibrium goes out of whack on it's own naturally, it's highly likely that the slightest push will mean severe change.

We have countless examples of this happening in the past, and it is never a good outcome whether it be napoleon being frozen in the dead of winter in russia, or the vikings loosing their passage to america.

[Roger Bacon]

Get a fucking biology degree than if you can't figure it out.


Asking for proof of this, is like asking someone for proof that driving on a freeway is dangerous. We cannot predict the outcome, and no one is stupid enough to give it a try for kicks.

We might drive into a brick wall, we might plow into another car, or we might just be fine and go about our day.

The chance that things will be fine in no way out weights the fact that putting yourself in a situation that is totally unpredictable is absurdly dangerous.

Odd's are pretty dam high that high levels of CO2 with likely destabilize the fragile equilibrium that are planet lives under this is indisputable fact.

This equilibrium goes out of whack on it's own naturally, it's highly likely that the slightest push will mean severe change.

We have countless examples of this happening in the past, and it is never a good outcome whether it be napoleon being frozen in the dead of winter in russia, or the vikings loosing their passage to america.

FYI you fat, ignorant, cock sucking, mistake...

No one is doubting that there's a direct connection between total c02 and global temperature, the question is what effect do humans have on total c02 levels?  No question we emit too much c02, but in comparison to naturally occurring c02 (which appears to naturally fluctuate more than the total c02 emitted by mankind) is it just a drop in the bucket? 

[Roger Bacon]

It's not like the mainstream scientific community, and their lemmings has ever been wrong before....

 

[oldtimer1]

They only have accurate weather recorded for about 100 years. Yet they say the weather is either out of range cold or out range hot. Every time we have a tornado, hurricane; cold weather or hot weather it's this global warming. Ice caps are melting? What were the ice caps doing 200 years ago? Nobody knows.

 I agree we should limit pollution emitted but I'm not blaming the weather for that. I think we should start first with Al Gore's 10,000 plus square foot house with the electricity, heating and ac. Then go after all the jet trips he takes on private jets. He should also sell all his other houses to make to save the planet and reduce global warming. Since liberals hate rich people and he is richer than Mitt Romney he should spread his wealth around.