Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 01, 2014, 09:45:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Believers of climate change, when is the  (Read 1388 times)
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 82774


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2013, 10:38:37 PM »

Climate change is real.
Humans impact on it is debatable.

Agreed.  And I think any politician that blurts out they think it's man-made, without knowing the science behind it, is a stone cold fcking idiots.  And it's been people from BOTH parties that have bought into it.  Obama, Biden, Mccain, Palin, Romney... the only person in prez politics since 2008 that hasn't bought this shit hook, line and sinker was Paul Ryan... but his reasoning was "Snow!" - making him appear really stupider than the others haha.

The issue frustrates me... cause everyone that comes close to the white house is either ignorant on purpose to please the tea party, or ignorant on purpose to suck up to the Al gore crowd.  I dont' get it.
Report to moderator   Logged

Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21036


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2013, 01:20:05 AM »

ignorant on purpose to please the tea party

 Grin
Report to moderator   Logged

LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12645

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2013, 05:03:24 AM »

I don't think anyone deny's that the climate is changing.
I know plenty of people that question just how much of we have on the environment.

My personal opinion... is that I don't fucking care, that we don't have enough of an impact to do anywhere near the damage that they try to scare us with.

Climate change is real.

Humans impact on it is debatable.

Bottom line - it has been far hotter and far cooler throughout earths history... and it's still here. IMHO, humans really overestimate their importance in the grand scheme of the earth.

This.

Climate Change / Global Warming / Whatever It Is Called Next is very real indeed.  And humankind certainly does have an impact on the cause of it, but nowhere near like what they want us to believe. 

And yeah, I agree.... I don't care either.
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6196


Getbig!


« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2013, 05:26:51 AM »

Man read a fucking book or something jesus. Who predicted what? when? why? US scientists? you realize that every single world climate center disagrees with you, so this US scientist who is the be all end all of climatology has trumped them?

predictions are often wrong in science that's science, looking for the truth, even if they look stupid in the process.

Did you go to the website and read the article? You didn't. Because if you had you would have seen this:
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

You asked who? Wieslaw Maslowski and there are others in that article supporting Maslowski.

What? That the arctic ice would melt by 2013.

When? When was this prediction made? In 2007

You can go ahead and argue Maslowski's credentials. Go ahead. The fact is he and other scientists made that prediction.


It is convenient to state that it's ok for scientists to look stupid while they search for the supposed "truth". I think they should shut their mouths until they actually know the TRUTH instead of acting as if they are sure that it is all man made.

Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2013, 10:38:21 AM »

Yep, we're all in agreement now.

ok? Can't tell if sarcastic, science is often wrong but continues to revise itself with the facts.

the facts are the world in increasing in temp, in fact records are being broken all over the place.

Why is the question, the world's climatologists agree that humans are fueling this rapid warming.

In some areas it should get colder as predicted.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2013, 10:39:40 AM »

I don't think anyone deny's that the climate is changing.
I know plenty of people that question just how much of we have on the environment.

My personal opinion... is that I don't fucking care, that we don't have enough of an impact to do anywhere near the damage that they try to scare us with.

Climate change is real.

Humans impact on it is debatable.

Bottom line - it has been far hotter and far cooler throughout earths history... and it's still here. IMHO, humans really overestimate their importance in the grand scheme of the earth.

No they don't and the impact is not really debatable.

Opinions count for shit in science, the evidence rebuts you.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2013, 10:40:52 AM »

when youre predictions are wrong in science, you revise your hypothesis.

notice how some are calling it climate change now instead of global warming?

jesus, the amount of fail in this post is too much.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dago_Joe
Getbig III
***
Posts: 997


Better to look good than to feel good: ALWAYS


« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2013, 10:52:20 AM »

I gave up a long time ago trying to have an intelligent conversation with leftists about climate change (call it by the right term people).  The reason is that for libs it is their RELIGION!!  Try having a rational discussion with anyone about anything religious and see how far you get.  I just wish more people would actually look at the science and see that CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN BEINGS!!!!  We are tiny little annoying ants in comparison to the Earth.  The temp has gone up and down for long before we crawled out of the primordial sludge and it will do so long after we are all becoming fossil fuel.  All I needed to see was the ClimateGate scandal with East Anglia University and all the memos and emails that were leaked to know exactly what was going on here.  Don't listen to the talking heads on either side of the aisle - find out for yourself exactly what's going on.
Report to moderator   Logged
doison
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3015


Rum Ham


« Reply #33 on: September 19, 2013, 11:18:23 AM »

Given a unit volume of atmosphere containing a CO2 density 1% above "normal," what is the increase in energy density for that volume of atmosphere over an arbitrary time period, what percentage of that increased energy density will be radiated back towards the earth, and what kind of increased temperature will it lead to?

Also, is a 1% increase in greenhouse gas per unit volume of atmosphere considered "a lot?"

If so, what does that say about the increase in temperature found in the initial calculations?
Report to moderator   Logged

Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2013, 10:04:19 AM »

I gave up a long time ago trying to have an intelligent conversation with leftists about climate change (call it by the right term people).  The reason is that for libs it is their RELIGION!!  Try having a rational discussion with anyone about anything religious and see how far you get.  I just wish more people would actually look at the science and see that CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN BEINGS!!!!  We are tiny little annoying ants in comparison to the Earth.  The temp has gone up and down for long before we crawled out of the primordial sludge and it will do so long after we are all becoming fossil fuel.  All I needed to see was the ClimateGate scandal with East Anglia University and all the memos and emails that were leaked to know exactly what was going on here.  Don't listen to the talking heads on either side of the aisle - find out for yourself exactly what's going on.

Please post this science. Please show how NASA are wrong and you an internet fucking partisan tard (your generalization of the left) figured it out. Records are being broken left and right, it is the most rapid warming period ever seen, so no, this isn't like before. If you think the industrial revolution and increase in agriculture (methane farts) haven't sped the process up you are left with explaining how the earth is in fact warming?

We know the variables that cause warming, none account for the magnitude, except one variable.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dago_Joe
Getbig III
***
Posts: 997


Better to look good than to feel good: ALWAYS


« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2013, 11:54:24 AM »

Please post this science. Please show how NASA are wrong and you an internet fucking partisan tard (your generalization of the left) figured it out. Records are being broken left and right, it is the most rapid warming period ever seen, so no, this isn't like before. If you think the industrial revolution and increase in agriculture (methane farts) haven't sped the process up you are left with explaining how the earth is in fact warming?

We know the variables that cause warming, none account for the magnitude, except one variable.
Here you go you fucking partisan tard.  I unlike you have looked things up and not just regurgitate whatever lies your messiah Algore said.  Now go kneel down and pray that the temp lowers and we all don't burst into flames or die from ice melting.  fuckwad. 

Peer-Reviewed Papers

    Lindzen, Richard S. (1981). "Turbulence and Stress Owing to Gravity Wave and Tidal Breakdown". Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (C10): 9707–9714. Bibcode:1981JGR....86.9707L. doi:10.1029/JC086iC10p09707.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Nigam, Sumant (1987). "On the Role of Sea Surface Temperature Gradients in Forcing Low-Level Winds and Convergence in the Tropics". Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 44 (17): 2418–2436. Bibcode:1987JAtS...44.2418L. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<2418:OTROSS>2.0.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (1990). "Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 71 (3): 288–299. Bibcode:1990BAMS...71..288L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1990)071<0288:SCCGW>2.0.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (1997). "Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate  change?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94 (16): 8335–8342. Bibcode:1997PNAS...94.8335L. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.16.8335.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Chou, Ming-Dah; Hou, Arthur Y. (2001). "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82 (3): 417–432. Bibcode:2001BAMS...82..417L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Choi, Yong-Sang (2009). "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data". Geophysical Research Letters 36 (16). Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3616705L. doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Choi, Yong-Sang (2011). "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications". Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47 (4): 377–390. Bibcode:2011APJAS..47..377L. doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (2011). "Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?)". The European Physical Journal Plus 127 (5): 1–15. Bibcode:2012EPJP..1
Report to moderator   Logged
Dago_Joe
Getbig III
***
Posts: 997


Better to look good than to feel good: ALWAYS


« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2013, 11:58:03 AM »

And yeah i know they are all from one guy, but his research is so powerful and right on.  Anything else is watered down compared to Lindzen.  I know you won't read even one of these because like I said it is your RELIGION and science has no part in faith. 
You attacked me for generalizing the left.  Show me one leftist who does not faithfully believe in global warming.  Just one.  Now tell me about how I am wrong for saying what i did.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #37 on: September 25, 2013, 06:29:36 AM »

Did you go to the website and read the article? You didn't. Because if you had you would have seen this:
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

You asked who? Wieslaw Maslowski and there are others in that article supporting Maslowski.

What? That the arctic ice would melt by 2013.

When? When was this prediction made? In 2007

You can go ahead and argue Maslowski's credentials. Go ahead. The fact is he and other scientists made that prediction.


It is convenient to state that it's ok for scientists to look stupid while they search for the supposed "truth". I think they should shut their mouths until they actually know the TRUTH instead of acting as if they are sure that it is all man made.



oh my god a scientist made a prediction that was incorrect, the humanity. Guess what, it happens daily, things aren't simply black and white as you perceive. Things are complex, subject to chaos, why you think that years upon years of correct predictions, made by independent people all over the globe (every single country disagrees with you) is trounced because a complex issue was off shows you probably never went to college.

Global warming is novel and complex, it will catch us off guard because it's unprecedented. The issue is if the severity many predict will come to fruition or act randomly, the decades of data indicated the predictions are pretty fucking good.

Our current theory explains almost every anomaly accurately.


Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #38 on: September 25, 2013, 06:31:37 AM »

And yeah i know they are all from one guy, but his research is so powerful and right on.  Anything else is watered down compared to Lindzen.  I know you won't read even one of these because like I said it is your RELIGION and science has no part in faith. 
You attacked me for generalizing the left.  Show me one leftist who does not faithfully believe in global warming.  Just one.  Now tell me about how I am wrong for saying what i did.

because you are posting on a gimmick I will offer you a solution to the anal savagery you are about to experience with your links from 1994. Would you like to stop now or would you like me to perform forceful coitus?
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #39 on: September 25, 2013, 06:42:40 AM »

Here you go you fucking partisan tard.  I unlike you have looked things up and not just regurgitate whatever lies your messiah Algore said.  Now go kneel down and pray that the temp lowers and we all don't burst into flames or die from ice melting.  fuckwad. 

Peer-Reviewed Papers

    Lindzen, Richard S. (1981). "Turbulence and Stress Owing to Gravity Wave and Tidal Breakdown". Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (C10): 9707–9714. Bibcode:1981JGR....86.9707L. doi:10.1029/JC086iC10p09707.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Nigam, Sumant (1987). "On the Role of Sea Surface Temperature Gradients in Forcing Low-Level Winds and Convergence in the Tropics". Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 44 (17): 2418–2436. Bibcode:1987JAtS...44.2418L. doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<2418:OTROSS>2.0.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (1990). "Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 71 (3): 288–299. Bibcode:1990BAMS...71..288L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1990)071<0288:SCCGW>2.0.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (1997). "Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate  change?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94 (16): 8335–8342. Bibcode:1997PNAS...94.8335L. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.16.8335.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Chou, Ming-Dah; Hou, Arthur Y. (2001). "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82 (3): 417–432. Bibcode:2001BAMS...82..417L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Choi, Yong-Sang (2009). "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data". Geophysical Research Letters 36 (16). Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3616705L. doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.
    Lindzen, Richard S.; Choi, Yong-Sang (2011). "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications". Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47 (4): 377–390. Bibcode:2011APJAS..47..377L. doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.
    Lindzen, Richard S. (2011). "Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?)". The European Physical Journal Plus 127 (5): 1–15. Bibcode:2012EPJP..1

All from one guy, LMAO!!!!!!!

1981, A paper from 1981

look at the power of the journals.

do you want me to unveil the biggest issue with these shit papers? Or this guy who uses discredited papers from the early 80's to argue global warming trends and data 33 years later.

it's like me posting a paper on the cause of AIDS from the 70's, while we know nothing of HIV and this is the guy warning us that gay's spread it.
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6196


Getbig!


« Reply #40 on: September 25, 2013, 06:45:16 AM »

oh my god a scientist made a prediction that was incorrect,


I stopped reading after this statement.

Don't act like it has been only 1 prediction or very few.

Fist of all, you doubted that any scientist made that prediction. I showed you that they did. MANY of them. So right there you lost this debate because you don't even know what is being argued by the side supporting this myth. So by all means, you already lost this debate.


Second, there have been more  predictions (PLURAL) that have been wrong. They have been wrong MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. From sea level to temperature readings for the past 15 years.

Go ahead, answer with more nonsense. I end my debate here with you since I have won again.

Climate change caused by man is a myth.

Climate change. Yes, there is climate change. They are called seasons.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #41 on: September 25, 2013, 06:53:54 AM »

I stopped reading after this statement.

Don't act like it has been only 1 prediction or very few.

Fist of all, you doubted that any scientist made that prediction. I showed you that they did. MANY of them. So right there you lost this debate because you don't even know what is being argued by the side supporting this myth. So by all means, you already lost this debate.


Second, there have been more  predictions (PLURAL) that have been wrong. They have been wrong MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. From sea level to temperature readings for the past 15 years.

Go ahead, answer with more nonsense. I end my debate here with you since I have won again.

Climate change caused by man is a myth.

Climate change. Yes, there is climate change. They are called seasons.

I don't doubt that a scientist made an incorrect prediction, I simply was pointing out that your article is not primary research and possibly editorialized and thus is a poor place holder in a scientific discussion.

Yes many predictions have been wrong, in all of science daily, and your point is? You strike me as someone who has never been in a science class.

We are wrong in medicine daily for example, again the world is complex and there is no data indicating that global warming is not occurring. Human impact is established and various theories will be tested.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #42 on: September 25, 2013, 06:54:50 AM »

I stopped reading after this statement.



Looks to be a habit of yours.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dago_Joe
Getbig III
***
Posts: 997


Better to look good than to feel good: ALWAYS


« Reply #43 on: September 25, 2013, 06:58:36 AM »

All from one guy, LMAO!!!!!!!

1981, A paper from 1981

look at the power of the journals.

do you want me to unveil the biggest issue with these shit papers? Or this guy who uses discredited papers from the early 80's to argue global warming trends and data 33 years later.

it's like me posting a paper on the cause of AIDS from the 70's, while we know nothing of HIV and this is the guy warning us that gay's spread it.


Yeah because climate research didn't exist until the 2000's when your buttpirate criminal messiah Algore started his crusade to make billions err uhh i mean save the planet.  give me a break and way to read the posts before posting your idiotic attacks just like any good liberal would do.  You post absolutely nothing but leftist rhetoric that you puke back up after it is shoved up your ass and down your throat by msnbc.  now go ahead post your anal savagery or whatever you called fagwad.  And also fuck you.  bye.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gonuclear
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 693


It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.


« Reply #44 on: September 25, 2013, 07:00:06 AM »

Al Gore, saw an issue that could scare millions and make him money.

Global warming is real and avoiding doing something about it will cause massive tragedies.

It that methane from the permafrost is released, millions would die.

Al Gore?  He probably has the carbon footprint of a small country.  He owns multiple homes, including a 10,000+ square foot mansion.  He travels to his lectures about global warming on private jets.  He owns five cars.  Electric cars?  Not a one.

A fraud in spades.

Meanwhile, developing countries are pressured into using high cost, low yield alternative energies that need heavy government subsidies to make them viable.  And the victims of this hoax in the developed world run out and buy fluorescent bulbs and keep that thermostat turned down.

Big Al does none of that.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #45 on: September 25, 2013, 07:19:31 AM »

Yeah because climate research didn't exist until the 2000's when your buttpirate criminal messiah Algore started his crusade to make billions err uhh i mean save the planet.  give me a break and way to read the posts before posting your idiotic attacks just like any good liberal would do.  You post absolutely nothing but leftist rhetoric that you puke back up after it is shoved up your ass and down your throat by msnbc.  now go ahead post your anal savagery or whatever you called fagwad.  And also fuck you.  bye.

No you fucking idiot, our understanding is light years ahead of this random wave paper from the fucking 80's. His papers are all bulletins or newsletters, giving opinion etc. he is a known user of debunked papers.

LOL leave like bitch, use a gimmick to post and get destroyed.

heres an update on aids from the early eighties.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1982 Sep 24;31(37):507-8, 513-4.

Update on acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)--United States.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC).


PMID: 6815471
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #46 on: September 25, 2013, 07:24:33 AM »

Al Gore?  He probably has the carbon footprint of a small country.  He owns multiple homes, including a 10,000+ square foot mansion.  He travels to his lectures about global warming on private jets.  He owns five cars.  Electric cars?  Not a one.

A fraud in spades.

Meanwhile, developing countries are pressured into using high cost, low yield alternative energies that need heavy government subsidies to make them viable.  And the victims of this hoax in the developed world run out and buy fluorescent bulbs and keep that thermostat turned down.

Big Al does none of that.

dude I don't give a fuck about your conspiracy theory, or the actions of some idiot. I am a scientist/academic, I could care less if global warming were true, who gives a fuck? the data however, indicate that it's very real and we are seeing some historic numbers year after year. The hottest years on record were in the 2000's, satellite imaging, something that has really improved in the last two decades, sorry dago, the early 60's weren't the peak of techonology, corroborate this. Are you suggesting NASA and every other climate org in the world are committing a conspiracy to keep people buying green products (nevermind, some of the countries that support global warming don't have an abundance of green options) and light bulbs?

It's a worldwide hoax?

The fact that people still dispute this and things like evolution, cosmology etc boggles my mind, ignorance is bliss I suppose.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dago_Joe
Getbig III
***
Posts: 997


Better to look good than to feel good: ALWAYS


« Reply #47 on: September 25, 2013, 07:28:12 AM »

dude I don't give a fuck about your conspiracy theory, or the actions of some idiot. I am a scientist/academic, I could care less if global warming were true, who gives a fuck? the data however, indicate that it's very real and we are seeing some historic numbers year after year. The hottest years on record were in the 2000's, satellite imaging, something that has really improved in the last two decades, sorry dago, the early 60's weren't the peak of techonology, corroborate this. Are you suggesting NASA and every other climate org in the world are committing a conspiracy to keep people buying green products (nevermind, some of the countries that support global warming don't have an abundance of green options) and light bulbs?

It's a worldwide hoax?

The fact that people still dispute this and things like evolution, cosmology etc boggles my mind, ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Good job little boy proving my initial point.  Leftists spew hatred and rhetoric and have absolutely nothing to back it up other than more hatred and noise.  Nothing will ever change your mind because ALgore is your pope and global warming is your religion.  It's like trying to convince a devote Jew that God didn't create the world.  I grow bored with your nonsense and attacks.  I'm going back to steroids and not wasting time arguing with immature marxist children on here.  Have fun attacking me calling me a gimmick or whatever you think because I won't be reading it.  Also fuck you...again.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8227


« Reply #48 on: September 25, 2013, 07:47:18 AM »

Good job little boy proving my initial point.  Leftists spew hatred and rhetoric and have absolutely nothing to back it up other than more hatred and noise.  Nothing will ever change your mind because ALgore is your pope and global warming is your religion.  It's like trying to convince a devote Jew that God didn't create the world.  I grow bored with your nonsense and attacks.  I'm going back to steroids and not wasting time arguing with immature marxist children on here.  Have fun attacking me calling me a gimmick or whatever you think because I won't be reading it.  Also fuck you...again.

Ok here you go:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

now I hope you are familiar with NASA. would you like the primary research?

while my quip about the 80s was serious, the reason being, it wasn't till the later 90's 2000's that our best tool  satellites became fully viable and reached their potential (probably not).


So let's go over what we know. We know that the C02 levels in the atmosphere are at the highest in history, we can use ice cores to confirm this (see research links), we also note that the temperature of the earth along with other signs of heating (sea level rises) are occurring. We can also account for solar output very accurately since 80's and have other methods that while less accurate and passably .05, we know that's not the sign of warming. So we have record temperatures all over the globe, re-ceding ice sheets, ocean acidification, sea level rises, record temperature years, year after year and your conclusion is that it isn't C02?

we know what C02 does, NASA bases technology off of this assumption for example, so the clear answer is the C02. Then they run models, varying the greenhouse gases, solar output, climate change (climate patterns, I use GW and CC as if they are equal, they are not) things like el nino, nina, and the models that most accurately predicted the trends seen in the last decades are the ones with eleveated C02.

so that's established, now, why would it be human induced? well why the fuck would it go up so much? ever heard of the industrial revolution? well that combined with surface and atmospheric measures indicate the Co2 is through the roof. It's through the roof even for the earth, we know because we can again, use ice cores to track that.


National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.


4
 
Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.


5
 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ anomalies/index.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp


6
 
T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.


7
 
I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.h tm


8
 
Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).


9
 
L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

Report to moderator   Logged
Dago_Joe
Getbig III
***
Posts: 997


Better to look good than to feel good: ALWAYS


« Reply #49 on: September 25, 2013, 07:52:38 AM »

Alright i went too far telling you to fuck off.  You have your opinion i have mine.  We will never agree and i will leave it at that.  I shouldn't have gotten nasty. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!