Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,728
#3,728
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Volcano, eruption, pollution, Bardarbunga



This must be stopped. What is Al Gore and Leonardo Dicaprio going to do about it
Click to expand...

Surprise! This GOP Senator's Theory About Volcanoes and Climate Change Is Totally Wrong.

For some reason, she brought up a volcano in Iceland.

"The emissions that are being put in the air by that volcano are a thousand years' worth of emissions that would come from all of the vehicles, all of the manufacturing in Europe," she said.

That position isn't exactly in line with the latest science. NPR quoted a climate scientist who called Murkowski's statement "untrue," "wrong," and "highly deceptive":

"What can I say?" wonders Princeton professor Michael Oppenheimer, a leading expert on climate change. "It's simply untrue. I don't know where she gets that number from."

Oppenheimer says it's actually the other way around: Annual emissions from Europe are 10 times bigger than the annual emissions of all volcanoes put together. And he says the argument misses a bigger point: Humans are adding carbon dioxide to what was a balanced system.

"So not only is the number wrong, but the context is highly deceptive," he says.

I asked Murkowski's office to comment on this. They haven't responded, but it looks like she was probably referring to the Bardarbunga volcano, which has been erupting for the last two months—spewing 35,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere every day. Sulfur dioxide is toxic, but it's not responsible for global warming. In fact, it actually cools the planet, Oppenheimer explained in an email to Mother Jones.

The 35,000 tons of SO2 Bardarbunga has spewed out daily may be a lot—on par with a large power plant's monthly output, he says—"but against all the other natural and manmade sources of SO2, it's not that much."

"So no matter how you slice it," concludes Oppenheimer, Murkowski's comments were "nonsense."
Click to expand...
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,729
#3,729
Burger said:
The earth goes through natural ice ages and warm ages.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur

smoking_non_sequitur_med.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,730
#3,730
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
You need to go over & convince China to get on board & understand all this BS talk you've been saying. Now if China would get on board & rein in some of what they do it just might help some. But since they are one of many big contributors of sending massive pollutants into the air of which they don't really care one thing about. Those living in parts of China walk around all day & night w/mask on so they don't breath in all that trashy air that's polluted. All this BS talking is not doing a thing as far as China is concerned.
Click to expand...
ajvol01 said:
What about China and everyone else?
Click to expand...
hog88 said:
So again you fail to address the China's and India's of the world and how we would get them to enforce the same rules you want enforced on us.
Click to expand...
MG1968 said:
tell us how to get emerging economies like China and India to latch on because it can't just be the US and Germany
Click to expand...
govols/cc said:
No, china & many other countries don't give a damn about global warming or the theory of it. They do what they want & say to hell with the US. How are we gonna fix a global "problem" we can't control?
Click to expand...
PKT_VOL said:
China doesn't give a damn about global warming.
Click to expand...
Sandvol said:
if you really think man's the problem you better go talk to China and India because they're the problem.
Click to expand...
BigOrangeTrain said:
you really are losing it if you feel China gives 2 craps about the environment.
Click to expand...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDl8SWckRaM[/youtube]

:whistling:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,734
#3,734
Einstein's theory that actions cause an equal and opposite reaction can be applied to this through out history. Imagine being on Earth in the 900's when an ice age happened. It's how the Vikings got so powerful.
 
#3,739
#3,739
hog88 said:
How about this?

View attachment 86346
Click to expand...

Neither of those articles are about climate; they're about the energy crises of 1973 and 1979.

SHORTAGES: A Time of Learning to Live with Less
Monday, Dec. 03, 1973

Heavy with cargo, low-riding oil tankers bucked through the windblown South Atlantic last week on their way from the Persian Gulf to Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, New York and other U.S. ports. In a week or so, they will tie up at their destinations—and the U.S. will enter a sterner, more painful new era of energy shortages. These huge ships were the last to be loaded before the Arab states blocked all petroleum shipments to the U.S. in retaliation for American support of Israel. The Arab move is expected to diminish by a...
Click to expand...


The Cooling of America 'Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house: Brrrrr!
By John Skow Monday, Dec. 24, 1979

Mud splats against wheel wells. The transmission howls. Linda Ronstadt, a half-ton Chevy pickup with a ton of yellow birch cordwood aboard, has sunk to her rusty frame in a mushy patch of logging road. Linda has four-wheel drive and a lot of heart, but this is a Sargasso of mud, the kind that bogs the wood lot every year after the leafless forest trees stop drinking water and the October rains come. Linda's friend and owner disembarks to consider the problem.

What follows is wet, dirty...
Click to expand...

What 1970s science said about global cooling

We've rehashed this denier talking point several times, it's stale as balls. Come up with something fresh already
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,740
#3,740
#3,742
#3,742
Heard climate change is suppose to increase number of people struck by lightning, lol. Ya'll be careful in these arctic lightning storms. Climate change may lead to spontaneous combustion or electrocution.
 
#3,743
#3,743
Sandvol said:
So, you really think the Chinese are going to do anything about their emissions? How gullible can you be?
Click to expand...

This is great, the GOP are like decapitated chickens running around in circles. On one extreme you have those like Mitch McConnell complaining that China doesn't have to do enough under this agreement, while on the other extreme you have people like Jim Inhofe who believe China's promises are too tough to keep.

So now that China has agreed to emissions cuts will we still hear the "We shouldn't act until everyone else does" talking point? That was always yall's last line of defense. So what now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,744
#3,744
BartW said:
This is great, the GOP are like decapitated chickens running around in circles. On one extreme you have those like Mitch McConnell complaining that China doesn't have to do enough under this agreement, while on the other extreme you have people like Jim Inhofe who believe China's promises are too tough to keep.

So now that China has agreed to emissions cuts will we still hear the "We shouldn't act until everyone else does" talking point? That was always yall's last line of defense. So what now?
Click to expand...

Who monitors China's emissions?
 
#3,745
#3,745
BartW said:
This is great, the GOP are like decapitated chickens running around in circles. On one extreme you have those like Mitch McConnell complaining that China doesn't have to do enough under this agreement, while on the other extreme you have people like Jim Inhofe who believe China's promises are too tough to keep.

So now that China has agreed to emissions cuts will we still hear the "We shouldn't act until everyone else does" talking point? That was always yall's last line of defense. So what now?
Click to expand...

They "agreed" to cuts because the communists know that useful idiots like you will parrot the company line.
 
#3,746
#3,746
BartW said:
This is great, the GOP are like decapitated chickens running around in circles. On one extreme you have those like Mitch McConnell complaining that China doesn't have to do enough under this agreement, while on the other extreme you have people like Jim Inhofe who believe China's promises are too tough to keep.

So now that China has agreed to emissions cuts will we still hear the "We shouldn't act until everyone else does" talking point? That was always yall's last line of defense. So what now?
Click to expand...

Actually my stance has always been this subject is asinine idiotic garbage not worth 10 seconds of time from any leader of any country.
 
#3,747
#3,747
Since you're back, I'll move this from God thread
Sandvol said:
Well, I figured you've probably had some coursework in astrophysics and I haven't. So, yeah I'll defer to you on this one. Also, the study of astrophysics came along before Al Gore so it has been more pure science. Global warming though, totally politicized. I thought what BOT said was accurate that you can't be 100% certain that planets will form there even though the photograph suggests it is occurring or trying to occur.
Click to expand...

Sure I’ll concede that. I have to ask though, when in your opinion did climate science become politicized? When Al Gore came along?

John Tyndall proved the greenhouse effect in 1859, the same year Darwin published On the Origins of Species. Arrhenius calculated climate sensitivity to CO2 in 1896. US presidents have been aware of climate change at least since JFK (and none have denied it). The Charney report for the NRC in 1979 was the first official consensus. The attacks on climate science didn’t really start until the 90’s and climate denial didn’t go mainstream in the GOP until about 5 years ago.

Why do you readily accept the scientific consensus on stellar evolution, but vehemently deny the same community’s consensus on topics like evolution and climate change? You don't suppose there might be a little confirmation bias here, eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,750
#3,750
BartW said:
This is great, the GOP are like decapitated chickens running around in circles. On one extreme you have those like Mitch McConnell complaining that China doesn't have to do enough under this agreement, while on the other extreme you have people like Jim Inhofe who believe China's promises are too tough to keep.

So now that China has agreed to emissions cuts will we still hear the "We shouldn't act until everyone else does" talking point? That was always yall's last line of defense. So what now?
Click to expand...

These are cute little thoughts of yours. You left out how China really doesn't care and won't do anything out of their current state to curb their carbon emissions. You almost got a gold star. Almost.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top