Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: loco on July 15, 2015, 08:44:07 AM
-
Might want to start stockpiling those down jackets: The sun could nod off by 2030, triggering what scientists are describing as a “mini ice age.”
Professor Vlentina Zharkova of Northumbira University presented the frigid findings at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales. Modern technology has made us able to predict solar cycles with much greater accuracy, and Zharkova’s model predicts that solar activity will drop by more than half between 2030 and 2040.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
-
Might want to start stockpiling those down jackets: The sun could nod off by 2030, triggering what scientists are describing as a “mini ice age.”
Professor Vlentina Zharkova of Northumbira University presented the frigid findings at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales. Modern technology has made us able to predict solar cycles with much greater accuracy, and Zharkova’s model predicts that solar activity will drop by more than half between 2030 and 2040.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Hopefully we can ramp up the smoke and pollution in time to create a "greenhouse effect" :D
-
Hopefully we can ramp up the smoke and pollution in time to create a "greenhouse effect" :D
LOL
-
The third slide in this interactive graph shows the effect of solar output on climate change:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
-
I'm sold.
Where do I send the check?
-
time to build a huge train we can all live in, will have Goodrum and Basile in the back as they best belong there...
-
maybe that means metroflex gym will have normal temperature
-
time to build a huge train we can all live in, will have Goodrum and Basile in the back as they best belong there...
:D
Obscure movie reference.
-
:D
Obscure movie reference.
nothing obscure about a movie with captain america and ed harris in it
-
they promised this a few years ago. they can just about manage the weekly forecast nevermind 15yrs from now
-
time to build a huge train we can all live in, will have Goodrum and Basile in the back as they best belong there...
Snowpiercer-reference of Peace :D
-
I'm sold.
Where do I send the check?
^^^^ "Global warming" "Climate change"....in a nutshell.
-
Science may or may not be wrong. However, there is no other mechanism in which to assess the validity or reliability of claims.
If anyone here has any other ways, please, put them forth.
Is science perfect? No. But, in a nutshell, its the best and most systematic process we have, love it or leave it.
Just look around, its ALL science.
-
However, there is no other mechanism in which to assess the validity or reliability of claims.
If anyone here has any other ways, please, put them forth.
History.
If your claims are historically proven, time and time again, to be complete bullshit, that might give us a hint as to what the future of your current claims are going to be.
-
History.
If your claims are historically proven, time and time again, to be complete bullshit, that might give us a hint as to what the future of your current claims are going to be.
I was talking about the mechanism that assesses the reliability and/or validity of claims. Not the claims itself.
The "Scientific Method" has not be proven to be complete bullshit time and time again. Where are you getting this information from? lol. Time and time again, the Scientific Method has been used to develop technology and cure diseases.
What other method, other than the Scientific Method, can replace it? If you have another method, you better go pick up your Nobel Prize! :o :o
Plus, the historical method is mainly related to assessing HISTORY, not science. We are talking about science here. Please keep with the conversation, gramps. Thanks. :D :D
-
Of course, and those scientific methods are often disregarded. The "Scientific Method" has not be proven to be complete bullshit time and time again. Where are you getting this information from? lol. Time and time again, the Scientific Method has been used to develop technology and cure diseases.
What other method, other than the Scientific Method, can replace it? If you have another method, you better go pick up your Nobel Prize! :o :o
As far as I can tell, nobody in "climate science" has the foggiest clue about the Scientific Method where you have a hypothesis and you try to disprove it. In climate science, you have a hypothesis and muleishly guard it against any disproving facts, going so far as to ritually slander anybody that suggests that your beloved hypothesis is at all flawed. Then you'll go falsify data because your actual data disproves your thesis. Then you'll use political favors to cover up, lie and decieve any attempts to see your data or your hypothetical "proof".
-
As far as I can tell, nobody in "climate science" has the foggiest clue about the Scientific Method where you have a hypothesis and you try to disprove it. In climate science, you have a hypothesis and muleishly guard it against any disproving facts, going so far as to ritually slander anybody that suggests that your beloved hypothesis is at all flawed. Then you'll go falsify data because your actual data disproves your thesis. Then you'll use political favors to cover up, lie and decieve any attempts to see your data or your hypothetical "proof".
Bingo ! You got it.
-
As far as I can tell, nobody in "climate science" has the foggiest clue about the Scientific Method where you have a hypothesis and you try to disprove it. In climate science, you have a hypothesis and muleishly guard it against any disproving facts, going so far as to ritually slander anybody that suggests that your beloved hypothesis is at all flawed. Then you'll go falsify data because your actual data disproves your thesis. Then you'll use political favors to cover up, lie and decieve any attempts to see your data or your hypothetical "proof".
Okay, calm down, I can see you getting all worked up, like you do with the gun debates. Take a step back from your computer, and breath for a second. Okay, good!
Anyway, that is why I wrote, "Science may or may not be wrong." Did you notice I also put in the word "WRONG?" I put in the word "wrong" to emphasize that climate scientists may be wrong.
When I was saying there is no better method than the scientific method, I was making a GENERAL statement across the board (in all areas of science). It is the best method we have to assess the reliability and validity of scientific claims. There is currently no other method. Sure, the scientific method may lead to erroneous conclusions, but its not perfect.
It just annoys me when science changes or is false, and idiots say, "See, its wrong" and draw the conclusion that it is always wrong, or they have some other better method. ::) ::) Thus, my statement still stands: It is the best method we have. It is not perfect, nor will it ever be. But there is enough evidence to suggest that the scientific method, when used appropriately, produces beneficial outcomes.
That is all I was saying. I was not speaking specifically about climate change. So, calm down, gramps.
-
better ramp up global warming then
-
Might want to start stockpiling those down jackets: The sun could nod off by 2030, triggering what scientists are describing as a “mini ice age.”
Professor Vlentina Zharkova of Northumbira University presented the frigid findings at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales. Modern technology has made us able to predict solar cycles with much greater accuracy, and Zharkova’s model predicts that solar activity will drop by more than half between 2030 and 2040.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
got my supply of tin foil ready... ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
got my supply of tin foil ready... ::) ::) ::) ::)
That's good, that's good.
-
here we go, stupid people trying to sound smart so they start talking about science
-
Then you'll go falsify data because your actual data disproves your thesis. Then you'll use political favors to cover up, lie and decieve any attempts to see your data or your hypothetical "proof".
the problem with this theory is that there are tens of thousands of professors, post-docs, and graduate students ready to make a name for themselves and prove your thesis wrong. if they can't that's pretty good evidence that you're not falsifying your data and your thesis may be correct.
again, look at these 11 slide at http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
do you believe the first slide, that measured land-ocean temps have increased 1.4 F since 1880 ? Dramatically so since 1950 ?
do you believe the ninth slide, that the amount of CO2 has increased 40% since 1750?
what part of the data do you think is being falsified?
-
oh god its turning into a global warming discussion :'(
10+ pages easily :'( :'(
please make them stop
i cant take it anymore
-
Snowpiercer-reference of Peace :D
;D
not sure where to put you yet!
-
the problem with this theory is that there are tens of thousands of professors, post-docs, and graduate students ready to make a name for themselves and prove your thesis wrong. if they can't that's pretty good evidence that you're not falsifying your data and your thesis may be correct.
again, look at these 11 slide at http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
do you believe the first slide, that measured land-ocean temps have increased 1.4 F since 1880 ? Dramatically so since 1950 ?
do you believe the ninth slide, that the amount of CO2 has increased 40% since 1750?
what part of the data do you think is being falsified?
Oh WOW!!!
Professors and Post Grad Students!!! :o ::) ::) ::)
-
Oh WOW!!!
Professors and Post Grad Students!!! :o ::) ::) ::)
Yes. Great way to advance your budding career. Publish something radical while showing others how you got your results, which they can then duplicate or prove you wrong.
-
Snowpiercer-reference of Peace :D
i actually liked that movie.... ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Oh WOW!!!
Professors and Post Grad Students!!! :o ::) ::) ::)
Well, who else would you look toward to for information about science?
Politicians? ::) ::) ??? ???
-
Well, who else would you look toward to for information about science?
Same place I always do: Archer Daniels Midland.
-
When I first read the thread title, I thought it said "Mini Mice age". I was thinking wtf? Who cares about mini mice?
Carry on
-
You fools try to be funny and make jokes rather than learning a new thing everytime
-
You fools try to be funny and make jokes rather than learning a new thing everytime
bringing teh realz.
-
You fools try to be funny and make jokes rather than learning a new thing everytime
That's because laughter counteracts the effects of heme iron.
-
Same place I always do: Archer Daniels Midland.
What about Falcon?
-
What about Falcon?
He just ridicules my lack of seriousness about electricity.
-
When I first read the thread title, I thought it said "Mini Mice age". I was thinking wtf? Who cares about mini mice?
Carry on
No, we only care about supersized, myostatin lacking mice
(http://www.mesomorphosis.com/images/elzi-volk/myostatin-mice.jpg)
-
The sun is the single largest factor on earth's climate. Maybe there's a new tax we can pay to make it stop?
-
The sun is the single largest factor on earth's climate. Maybe there's a new tax we can pay to make it stop?
Give them enough time and I'm sure one of these liberal hipster dickheads will think of something.
-
The sun is the single largest factor on earth's climate. Maybe there's a new tax we can pay to make it stop?
sounds like a plan for Mr Burns...
-
The sun is the single largest factor on earth's climate. Maybe there's a new tax we can pay to make it stop?
it is not, don;t let facts get in your way.
-
it is not, don;t let facts get in your way.
Wait...are you saying that the sun is NOT the single largest determinant of our climate? Hahaha! You Global Warming zealots are a riot.
-
I was talking about the mechanism that assesses the reliability and/or validity of claims. Not the claims itself.
The "Scientific Method" has not be proven to be complete bullshit time and time again. Where are you getting this information from? lol. Time and time again, the Scientific Method has been used to develop technology and cure diseases.
What other method, other than the Scientific Method, can replace it? If you have another method, you better go pick up your Nobel Prize! :o :o
Plus, the historical method is mainly related to assessing HISTORY, not science. We are talking about science here. Please keep with the conversation, gramps. Thanks. :D :D
here we go, stupid people trying to sound smart so they start talking about science
;D
-
the problem with this theory is that there are tens of thousands of professors, post-docs, and graduate students ready to make a name for themselves and prove your thesis wrong.
I doubt that. They don't want to be ostracized.
-
Wait...are you saying that the sun is NOT the single largest determinant of our climate? Hahaha! You Global Warming zealots are a riot.
Variations of the sun's output is not. That interactive graphics I posted make that very clear.
-
Variations of the sun's output is not. That interactive graphics I posted make that very clear.
So the Maunder Minimum didn't happen?
-
So the Maunder Minimum didn't happen?
Correlation is not causation. But it doesn't even correlate well. From wikipedia:
Note that the term "Little Ice Age" applied to the Maunder minimum is something of a misnomer as it implies a period of unremitting cold (and on a global scale), which is not the case. For example, the coldest winter in the Central England Temperature record is 1683-4, but the winter just 2 years later (both in the middle of the Maunder minimum) was the fifth warmest in the whole 350-year CET record. Furthermore, summers during the Maunder minimum were not significantly different to those seen in subsequent years. The drop in global average temperatures in paleoclimate reconstructions at the start of the Little Ice Age was between about 1560 and 1600, whereas the Maunder minimum began almost 50 years later.
And note the "and on a global scale". The "Little Ice Age" was not global. While Northern Europe and the US had very cold winters, southern Europe, Canada and Greenland did not.
-
Correlation is not causation. But it doesn't even correlate well. From wikipedia:
Note that the term "Little Ice Age" applied to the Maunder minimum is something of a misnomer as it implies a period of unremitting cold (and on a global scale), which is not the case. For example, the coldest winter in the Central England Temperature record is 1683-4, but the winter just 2 years later (both in the middle of the Maunder minimum) was the fifth warmest in the whole 350-year CET record. Furthermore, summers during the Maunder minimum were not significantly different to those seen in subsequent years. The drop in global average temperatures in paleoclimate reconstructions at the start of the Little Ice Age was between about 1560 and 1600, whereas the Maunder minimum began almost 50 years later.
And note the "and on a global scale". The "Little Ice Age" was not global. While Northern Europe and the US had very cold winters, southern Europe, Canada and Greenland did not.
I will now ponder this. Thanks.
-
It's the sun that drives climate change (which is always going on) not so-called man made.
Lots of videos here of different real scientists explaining how the sun controls our climate.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]climate+change+sun
-
It's the sun that drives climate change (which is always going on) not so-called man made.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Jump to the last slide if you must. The warming effect of greenhouse gasses and ozone, plus the cooling effect from aerosols (burning of coal), deforestation and volcanic activity, and the ups and downs of solar output and orbit wobble matched the observed values amazingly well.
-
Good, I can't stand hot weather.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Jump to the last slide if you must. The warming effect of greenhouse gasses and ozone, plus the cooling effect from aerosols (burning of coal), deforestation and volcanic activity, and the ups and downs of solar output and orbit wobble matched the observed values amazingly well.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't pass the smell test. For example, let's assume that for some reason, our sun's energy output was instantly cut in half. Your theory is that would have a negligible (and maybe zero) effect on our climate? And if the sun's output were to double, would that not also have an impact?
And after you admit that in the first scenario, the oceans would freeze and in the second, they would boil off, why wouldn't smaller helio-changes produce climate variances on the earth?
-
Snowpiercer-reference of Peace :D
I'm not a fan of their protein bars
-
got my supply of tin foil ready... ::) ::) ::) ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=576380.0;attach=629931;image)
They look like Hershey's Kisses. That or it's an homage to Oblio.
-
I'm sorry, but this doesn't pass the smell test. For example, let's assume that for some reason, our sun's energy output was instantly cut in half. Your theory is that would have a negligible (and maybe zero) effect on our climate? And if the sun's output were to double, would that not also have an impact?
And after you admit that in the first scenario, the oceans would freeze and in the second, they would boil off, why wouldn't smaller helio-changes produce climate variances on the earth?
It passes the smell test, your scenario is absurd, nothing like that could ever happen but let's grant you your magical sun. It would have a huge impact, I haven't looked at his graphs in two weeks, however, the conclusion is that the variations in the sun do not account for the observed effect. in no way is that implying that the sun has no effect, reading comprehension is a problem huh?
-
It passes the smell test, your scenario is absurd, nothing like that could ever happen but let's grant you your magical sun. It would have a huge impact, I haven't looked at his graphs in two weeks, however, the conclusion is that the variations in the sun do not account for the observed effect. in no way is that implying that the sun has no effect, reading comprehension is a problem huh?
It may seem to be reductio ad absurdam, but it illustrates a point that seems to be lost here: the sun's output affects the earth's climate. We can debate the magnitude of the effect.
Reading comprehension isn't a huge problem, getting through the huge tracts of obvious global warming propaganda is.
-
It may seem to be reductio ad absurdam, but it illustrates a point that seems to be lost here: the sun's output affects the earth's climate. We can debate the magnitude of the effect.
Reading comprehension isn't a huge problem, getting through the huge tracts of obvious global warming propaganda is.
It doesn't seem, it is. No point is lost, the graph showed the effects of the sun on the earth's climate, you are the only one suggesting it is a variable we have not tested. We can debate, people have, it's known. It would be like debating the rainfall last year, there is variation but it's not a subjective thing.
-
did you know that light created from the fusion of hydrogen to helium in the sun can take anywhere from 1000 to 1 million years to reach the surface? That's because the atomic particles are so close together that the photon, traveling at the speed of light, keeps bouncing from atom to atom, taking a zig-zag path to the surface.
The sun's output is not going to change significantly until most of the hydrogen has been used up, which is in a few billion years. The variations we do see are mostly from sunspot activity, but that variation is a fraction of a percent of the total, and as those graphs show you, do not have a significant effect on the overall temperature of the earth. What would happen if the sun's output were cut in half? We'd all die. How could that happen? Most likely scenario would be a massive star or black hole passes a few lightyears away and rearranges the orbits of all our planets. Other than that, it ain't going to happen.
the question is what can account for the changes we've seen in the climate. We know the output of the sun hasn't changed more than a fraction of a percent. It certainly hasn't been cut in half.
the composition of the atmosphere is, and always has been, the most significant factor for the planetary climate. Humans have been changing that composition by burning fossil fuels. In 150 years we've increased CO2 by 40%. It took hundreds of millions of years for that coal and oil to form. We've burned most of it since WWII.
-
did you know that light created from the fusion of hydrogen to helium in the sun can take anywhere from 1000 to 1 million years to reach the surface? That's because the atomic particles are so close together that the photon, traveling at the speed of light, keeps bouncing from atom to atom, taking a zig-zag path to the surface.
The sun's output is not going to change significantly until most of the hydrogen has been used up, which is in a few billion years. The variations we do see are mostly from sunspot activity, but that variation is a fraction of a percent of the total, and as those graphs show you, do not have a significant effect on the overall temperature of the earth. What would happen if the sun's output were cut in half? We'd all die. How could that happen? Most likely scenario would be a massive star or black hole passes a few lightyears away and rearranges the orbits of all our planets. Other than that, it ain't going to happen.
the question is what can account for the changes we've seen in the climate. We know the output of the sun hasn't changed more than a fraction of a percent. It certainly hasn't been cut in half.
the composition of the atmosphere is, and always has been, the most significant factor for the planetary climate. Humans have been changing that composition by burning fossil fuels. In 150 years we've increased CO2 by 40%. It took hundreds of millions of years for that coal and oil to form. We've burned most of it since WWII.
So why hasn't the earth's temperature warmed in over 20 years?
-
So why hasn't the earth's temperature warmed in over 20 years?
because the pundits you watch or read cherry pick their data
-
because the pundits you watch or read cherry pick their data
So go live in a cave. No AC. No heat. No car. No electricity. Hunt for or grown your own food. Go pick your own cherries.
Not going to happen is it? Not with you. Not with me. Not with the world. Fifth world living only works when its done to someone else.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. You have heard of this, no?
Careful with the rights you want to take from others. They may also give you a few lefts.
Now run along and get married. When you've suffered enough of that "equality" get back to us. Oh, and by the way. It's a proven item that those that demand equality only desire it with those they are most envious of.
-
they promised this a few years ago. they can just about manage the weekly forecast nevermind 15yrs from now
qft
50/50 chance of getting the next few days weather correct
-
So go live in a cave. No AC. No heat. No car. No electricity. Hunt for or grown your own food. Go pick your own cherries.
Not going to happen is it? Not with you. Not with me. Not with the world. Fifth world living only works when its done to someone else.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. You have heard of this, no?
Careful with the rights you want to take from others. They may also give you a few lefts.
Now run along and get married. When you've suffered enough of that "equality" get back to us. Oh, and by the way. It's a proven item that those that demand equality only desire it with those they are most envious of.
It's pure ego stroking for people like Tim when they get on their little soap box about stuff like this.
You are correct, he will do absolutely zero but run his mouth.
Pure narcissism.
-
So go live in a cave. No AC. No heat. No car. No electricity. Hunt for or grown your own food. Go pick your own cherries.
no, just reduce the amount of hydrocarbons we burn. various ways to get that done. subsidize solar and wind (like we do for oil). incentivize switching to more efficient technology. can go either way: rebates or carbon tax.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. You have heard of this, no?
Animal Farm, by George Orwell, 1945. How does that apply here?
Careful with the rights you want to take from others. They may also give you a few lefts.
No one wants to take away rights. But it is not good to hide the true cost of items. For example, fracking is currently making a very selected few people rich. But the cost of cleaning up the ground water 20 years from now will be much greater. Cheap gasoline is great for consumers now. But the warming of the environment will cause great expense in 20 years or less. Those expenses include more damage from storms, reduced productivity on existing farmland, mass migration due to coastal flooding. (Bye Bangladesh, bye Miami, bye New Orleans and Galveston), massive military spending and wars because of all these pressures.
Now run along and get married. When you've suffered enough of that "equality" get back to us. Oh, and by the way. It's a proven item that those that demand equality only desire it with those they are most envious of.
citation please
-
It's pure ego stroking for people like Tim when they get on their little soap box about stuff like this.
You are correct, he will do absolutely zero but run his mouth.
Pure narcissism.
I'd be willing to bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours. I use my AC maybe one week a year. I use my heater less than one month a year. Almost always use cold for the washing machine. Drive less than 5000 miles a year. Buy fuel efficient cars and drive them until they die, about once every 10 years. Hardly ever travel by air. Only buy energy star appliances and again use them until they die. Eat almost all of my meals at home, and never processed food.
I do what I can. But this is a world wide problem and needs a world wide solution. Solar, wind, better energy distribution grid, better energy storage devices. A breakthrough in carbon sequestration would be nice.
-
I'd be willing to bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours. I use my AC maybe one week a year. I use my heater less than one month a year. Almost always use cold for the washing machine. Drive less than 5000 miles a year. Buy fuel efficient cars and drive them until they die, about once every 10 years. Hardly ever travel by air. Only buy energy star appliances and again use them until they die. Eat almost all of my meals at home, and never processed food.
I do what I can. But this is a world wide problem and needs a world wide solution. Solar, wind, better energy distribution grid, better energy storage devices. A breakthrough in carbon sequestration would be nice.
You use AC. You use heating.
Car, airplanes, etc etc
Like the other poster said, go live in a cave or stfu with your constant need to show everybody up with your phony compassion.
-
no, just reduce the amount of hydrocarbons we burn. various ways to get that done. subsidize solar and wind (like we do for oil). incentivize switching to more efficient technology. can go either way: rebates or carbon tax.
Animal Farm, by George Orwell, 1945. How does that apply here?
No one wants to take away rights. But it is not good to hide the true cost of items. For example, fracking is currently making a very selected few people rich. But the cost of cleaning up the ground water 20 years from now will be much greater. Cheap gasoline is great for consumers now. But the warming of the environment will cause great expense in 20 years or less. Those expenses include more damage from storms, reduced productivity on existing farmland, mass migration due to coastal flooding. (Bye Bangladesh, bye Miami, bye New Orleans and Galveston), massive military spending and wars because of all these pressures.
citation please
Again, go live in a cave You. Not me. Not anyone else. Go live in a cave. No internet. Your absence while not proof of this will still be something of a comfort to many.
I prefer clean water and clean air. And that includes free of the Gore-ish BS spat out by those that I call "more equal animals". And surely you jest? How does "Animal Farm" apply here? Who is the horse and who is the pig? Here's a hint: I'm not the one squealing but I do say "nay" to your eco-drivel.
As for your pithy request for a "citation", suffice to say my information came from one of the smartest men I have known. You wouldn't like him nor believe him and I doubt you knew him and as he was a conservative you would doubtless decry him for that alone.
And no one, absolutely no one gives a poo about your supposed "carbon footprint". "Carbon sequestration"? Sounds more like progress castration. Yeah... That's right. I read several of your thoughts, such as they are, on a variety of subjects and while none are what I would term pedestrian in the strictest sense, some are quite alarming and to be honest, stupid gross. You guess which are which.
Again, go live in a cave, please. I said, "please".
-
did you know that light created from the fusion of hydrogen to helium in the sun can take anywhere from 1000 to 1 million years to reach the surface? That's because the atomic particles are so close together that the photon, traveling at the speed of light, keeps bouncing from atom to atom, taking a zig-zag path to the surface.
The sun's output is not going to change significantly until most of the hydrogen has been used up, which is in a few billion years. The variations we do see are mostly from sunspot activity, but that variation is a fraction of a percent of the total, and as those graphs show you, do not have a significant effect on the overall temperature of the earth. What would happen if the sun's output were cut in half? We'd all die. How could that happen? Most likely scenario would be a massive star or black hole passes a few lightyears away and rearranges the orbits of all our planets. Other than that, it ain't going to happen.
the question is what can account for the changes we've seen in the climate. We know the output of the sun hasn't changed more than a fraction of a percent. It certainly hasn't been cut in half.
the composition of the atmosphere is, and always has been, the most significant factor for the planetary climate. Humans have been changing that composition by burning fossil fuels. In 150 years we've increased CO2 by 40%. It took hundreds of millions of years for that coal and oil to form. We've burned most of it since WWII.
We've burned up most of the Earth's fossil fuels??? HTF do you come to that conclusion? I say we have used less than 1% ... We have absolutely no idea as to the amount of fossil fuel left. In fact regulation prevents us from finding out.
We aren't killing the planet. It doesn't have a fever. Al Gore sold it well but the science just doesn't prove global warming. When you have to try and convince people that a science is "settled" that in itself proves that there is serious doubt.
We have need to have a "cause" to worry about. Since the bomb isn't as much of an "immediate threat" as we were all so convinced it was there needed to be a new fear.
How this isn't obvious is truly mind boggling. I am constantly being told that I should be paying more taxes - that "I didn't build my business" (when in fact it was 100% only me) ...
Liberalism is by far the most effecient way for the weak and "have-nots" to be controlled. Sadly there are good people that get caught up in the nonsense.
So - wring your hands with worry and gaze at the horizon wondering when it will all end. I will drive my 'tank' and keep my AC on 68 and live a comfortable life with my family and friends.
-
We've burned up most of the Earth's fossil fuels??? HTF do you come to that conclusion?
I said most of the fossil fuels that we've used has been since WWII. I admit I worded it poorly. Really even in the last 50 years. We've been using it at an accelerated rate.
I say we have used less than 1% ... We have absolutely no idea as to the amount of fossil fuel left. In fact regulation prevents us from finding out.
There are estimates, approximately 5 gigatons of recoverable carbon. However if we were to release all that into the atmosphere, we'd certainly all die of carbon dioxide poisoning. Even 1 gigaton will cause significant harm.
We aren't killing the planet. It doesn't have a fever. Al Gore sold it well but the science just doesn't prove global warming. When you have to try and convince people that a science is "settled" that in itself proves that there is serious doubt.
97% of scientists disagree with you. When you have a bunch of rich people who's livelihood depends on the masses buying up fossil fuels, spending millions of dollars to convince yahoos and rubes the guvrmit is out to get you, then we have problems.
(when in fact it was 100% only me)
Did you get a public education? Did your employees? Does your business benefit from having a stable civilized society? Do you use anything that was funded by government agencies? road, police, fire department, technology (the internet)? Any patents involved? Used anything subsidized by the government? food, oil, etc
So - wring your hands with worry and gaze at the horizon wondering when it will all end. I will drive my 'tank' and keep my AC on 68 and live a comfortable life with my family and friends.
like with that gay marriage thing, momentum is on our side. Governments around the world think it is a serious threat. The US military see it as a serious threat. The insurance industry see it as a serious threat. More and more global businesses see it as a serious threat. Solar is becoming cheaper and cheaper. Energy storage is becoming cheaper and cheaper. The electrical grid is becoming smarter. But we need policies to speed all this along.
-
I said most of the fossil fuels that we've used has been since WWII. I admit I worded it poorly. Really even in the last 50 years. We've been using it at an accelerated rate.
There are estimates, approximately 5 gigatons of recoverable carbon. However if we were to release all that into the atmosphere, we'd certainly all die of carbon dioxide poisoning. Even 1 gigaton will cause significant harm.
97% of scientists disagree with you. When you have a bunch of rich people who's livelihood depends on the masses buying up fossil fuels, spending millions of dollars to convince yahoos and rubes the guvrmit is out to get you, then we have problems.
Did you get a public education? Did your employees? Does your business benefit from having a stable civilized society? Do you use anything that was funded by government agencies? road, police, fire department, technology (the internet)? Any patents involved? Used anything subsidized by the government? food, oil, etc
like with that gay marriage thing, momentum is on our side. Governments around the world think it is a serious threat. The US military see it as a serious threat. The insurance industry see it as a serious threat. More and more global businesses see it as a serious threat. Solar is becoming cheaper and cheaper. Energy storage is becoming cheaper and cheaper. The electrical grid is becoming smarter. But we need policies to speed all this along.
So why do you continue to burn fossil fuels in your own personal life if you feel so strongly about it?
-
So why do you continue to burn fossil fuels in your own personal life if you feel so strongly about it?
No one is asking to abandon all fossil fuels. No one is wanting to destroy the economy. We want to create policies that gets us to switch to renewables as fast as possible. Also, research and planning need to begin on how to deal with the climate changes that will occur no matter what because of what we've already pumped into the atmosphere. It's a given that NYC will flood during every Nor'easter. Locks will need to be built in the bay and at the top of the East River. South Miami will just have to be abandoned. Can't build walls or dykes. Water will just come up through the porous limestone.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-exposed-to-rising-sea-levels-2014-4
-
No one is asking to abandon all fossil fuels. No one is wanting to destroy the economy. We want to create policies that gets us to switch to renewables as fast as possible. Also, research and planning need to begin on how to deal with the climate changes that will occur no matter what because of what we've already pumped into the atmosphere. It's a given that NYC will flood during every Nor'easter. Locks will need to be built in the bay and at the top of the East River. South Miami will just have to be abandoned. Can't build walls or dykes. Water will just come up through the porous limestone.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cities-exposed-to-rising-sea-levels-2014-4
Soon, the likes of you won't be "asking", you'll be telling. Then demanding. Then enforcing. Then punishing.
What a Nazi you are. Now go live in a cave with your cats. Yeah. You are a fooking Nazi and yes I am serious because you read like one.
(http://www.headinjurytheater.com/images/oc%20daffy%20hitler.jpg)
-
So go live in a cave. No AC. No heat. No car. No electricity. Hunt for or grown your own food. Go pick your own cherries.
Not going to happen is it? Not with you. Not with me. Not with the world. Fifth world living only works when its done to someone else.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. You have heard of this, no?
Careful with the rights you want to take from others. They may also give you a few lefts.
Now run along and get married. When you've suffered enough of that "equality" get back to us. Oh, and by the way. It's a proven item that those that demand equality only desire it with those they are most envious of.
You are a moron, you will be forced into fifth world living if we do nothing, the sea is already going to rise 5 meters within a 100 years, regardless of what we do due to the ice caps melting.
The only option is to shut off all electricity, let's stop solar and nuclear, wind and water energy and all live in caves, that's the solution ::)
Are you suppose to be intelligent? or do you just try to sound smart?
-
You are a moron, you will be forced into fifth world living if we do nothing, the sea is already going to rise 5 meters within a 100 years, regardless of what we do due to the ice caps melting.
everything I've seen says a max of 0.5 m, which is still a lot.
Are you suppose to be intelligent? or do you just try to sound smart?
I've not seen him write anything intelligent. He just likes to throw around the words NAZI and fascist.
-
everything I've seen says a max of 0.5 m, which is still a lot.
I've not seen him write anything intelligent. He just likes to throw around the words NAZI and fascist.
I have seen 5 meters and 20 meters if we continue on for another century. .5M sounds more correct, will look again.
-
I have seen 5 meters and 20 meters if we continue on for another century. .5M sounds more correct, will look again.
well this just published today
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/the_scientist_who_put_global_warming_on_the_map_has_terrifying_news_about_sea_level_rise/
which says up to 10 ft by 2100
better start building those locks around NYC
-
Sea levels are NOT rising.
-
The Maldives are NOT sinking
-
well this just published today
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/20/the_scientist_who_put_global_warming_on_the_map_has_terrifying_news_about_sea_level_rise/
which says up to 10 ft by 2100
better start building those locks around NYC
Salon.com ::) ::) ::)
-
Salon.com ::) ::) ::)
the article has a link to the scientific paper in http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/
Oh, that's right, facts have a liberal bias.
-
the article has a link to the scientific paper in http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/
Oh, that's right, facts have a liberal bias.
You seriously think 10m by 2100?? How convenient of a date.. Just out of reach of any of our lives.. Lol... This will simply be YET ANOTHER silly ass liberal the sky is falling fear tactic used to keep the stupid and have not in their place.
-
the article has a link to the scientific paper in http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/
Oh, that's right, facts have a liberal bias.
I can't find a link to the paper, it just takes me to the front page of ACP. Could you post the paper please?
-
The Maldives are NOT sinking
This guy is paid by numerous oil and gas companies, is a known liar and is completely wrong.
Apparently the gov of the Maldives who are begging for relief do to sea rise are wrong and this idiot is right.
-
This guy is paid by numerous oil and gas companies, is a known liar and is completely wrong.
Apparently the gov of the Maldives who are begging for relief do to sea rise are wrong and this idiot is right.
Getbig readers should take note that the proponents of global warming do not engage in real scientific debate but rather character assassination, name calling and innuendo. The "proofs" they provide are routinely debunked by the real scientists and experts in their respective fields.
A lot of excellent videos here by the real scientists in the various fields related to climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly/videos