Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#51
#51
TennTradition said:
:crazy:

GS - do you read others' posts or look for key words instead? Where did I say that AGW theory is not in question? I didn't say anything of the sort.

In many cases (but certainly not all cases), I think the questions being asked are silly or are motivated more out of political/financial fear than actual scientific basis - but it is obviously being questioned.
Click to expand...

I think the whole AGW theory is laughable, motivated by greed and politics rather than science.
 
#52
#52
gsvol said:
I think the whole AGW theory is laughable, motivated by greed and politics rather than science.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's what you think. I also think you're wrong. The theory is motivated by and rooted in science. The way some have chosen to respond to or use the theory has, on the other hand, been motivated by greed or politics (including some scientists). The part that I find laughable is that this is true of some advocates on both sides of the issue. I don't really see your posts as being scientific, but rather quite rooted in politics.

Now, getting back to my question that you "forgot" to respond to in your previous post - do you care to highlight where I said no one is questioning AGW theory?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#53
#53
TennTradition said:
I'm sure that's what you think. I also think you're wrong. The theory is motivated by and rooted in science. The way some have chosen to respond to or use the theory has, on the other hand, been motivated by greed or politics (including some scientists). The part that I find laughable is that this is true of some advocates on both sides of the issue. I don't really see your posts as being scientific, but rather quite rooted in politics.

Now, getting back to my question that you "forgot" to respond to in your previous post - do you care to highlight where I said no one is questioning AGW theory?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What about your claim that temps may increase by 3 degrees celsius in the 21st century because of CO2??

Your arguments always lead right back to square one with the claim that the preponderance of evidence leads us to believe AGW is the logical conclusion and then you claim anyone who argues against that theory isn't being scientific??

Here is my square one hypothesis; CO2 makes up only .038% of the atmosphere yet almost every living creature arguably depends on it. The villainization of CO2 is the most remarkable hoax ever perpetuated on mankind since the beginning of time.

Global Warming Myth | Snow Blizzard | Fox and Friends | Mediaite

British meteorologist Piers Corbyn appeared on Fox and Friends to not only celebrate his accurate prediction of a bone-chillingly cold winter, but to also share his disgust with what he believes to be the “failed science” behind global warming. Despite it often being mentioned that the consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is undisputedly occurring, Corbyn proudly goes against the grain and advocates for his hypothesis of the coming global cooling.

Predicting in November that winter in Europe would be “exceptionally cold and snowy, like Hell frozen over at times,” Corbyn suggested we should sooner prepare for another Ice Age than worry about global warming. Corbyn believed global warming “is complete nonsense, it’s fiction, it comes from a cult ideology. There’s no science in there, no facts to back it up.”

Furthermore, he disputed the underlying assumption of most scientists, arguing that higher carbon dioxide levels does not actually have the effect of increasing temperature, and instead global warming supporters “fiddle the facts to justify political attacks.”
Click to expand...

On the other hand the British government Met which predicted an exceptionaly mild winter and was wrong is headed up by a man with no scientific credentials, his previous work has been with an enviro ngo that promotes the belief in AGW.

BTW, although the Brits have put billions into wind turbines, the official report of where energy is coming from during the current blizzard credits wind power as being 0 per cent because it is so small.

We are making very costly idiotic energy policy decisions based on a theory of dubious merit at best.

Ethanol mandates should be repealed immediately if only because they are counterproductive to solving the problem even if the theory did have merit.
 
#54
#54
I am not suggesting that everyone that argues against AGW theory is being unscientific. I did, however, point out that your posts on the subject often lack a certain scientific quality.

You seem to make a lot of generalizations about the words I post, including rash judgements about the value of my posts based on (as evidenced above) an apparent lack of reading comprehension.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#56
#56
fl0at said:
See post 27, we can start there.
Click to expand...

Pardon my slowness to respond, lots going on during the holidays, don't mean to avoid the issue.

Glacial cores are a poor way to determine CO2 levels but if your chart were completely accurate and CO2 were drivng the global temperature, I have some questions;

1. How do you explain the medieval warm period and the little ice age with CO2 levels being about the same?

2. After WWII we had the greatest industrial surge in history, how is it that from 1945 to 1975 global temps fell dramatically while CO2 increased greatly.

3. Why is it that about half of the warmest years came in the first half of the 20th century if CO2 levels were determining temperature?

ps; sorry for original post in which I should have said the CO2 levels in 1250 and 1650 were about the same.

Here is yet another question why did the GW alarmists that are the (pseudo)- scientists who give the data to the UN IPCC try to hide the warm period and the little ice age to try to make their hocky stick model look more believable if indeed they weren't purposely trying to deceive people??
 
#57
#57
IPorange said:
The warming already done is irreversible. Anyone honest would admit that. The thing is, that is the sort of message that makes even the educated public throw their hands up and say "screw it."
Click to expand...

That has to be one of the most ludicrous statements on the topic I have yet to read.

It is illustrative of a Michael Chrichton statements about enviornmentalism being a religion. Keep the faith, damn the facts.

Here is a fact to consider:

Milankovitch Cycles

The episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers.

It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.
Click to expand...

Given all the facts we do know the most intelligent option would be to increase CO2 in the atmosphere as much as possible.
 
#58
#58
I told YOU about Milankovitch Cycles years ago, and you had no idea what I was talking about.

And you are certifiably insane if you think intentionally altering the global climate based on our current understanding of it is a good idea.


Btw, it's 50 degrees in Denver, and no snow from here to Eastern Missouri. How does this factor into your analysis of global warming based on US weather?
 
#61
#61
fl0at said:
I read this, and found it amusing. Did you take a look at Figure 2? Besides the fact he is arguing point and not mean, I'll play his game, for you.

His baseline is 300, in Figure 2. (All those little circles).

The baseline in the core sample is 280 ppm. An increase of 20 ppm, and his Figure shows higher ppm in the 1800s than law dome.

He doesn't actually argue the increase, so instead he argues the depth.

Well, that is a bit of a flaw, as well. (This is a test, we'll see if you pass it.) Read on.

As to your reference of his, and since you like to include others work, I shall too:



Some are Boojums Blog Archive The Golden Horseshoe Award: Jaworowski and the vast CO2 conspiracy
Click to expand...

So you try to ricicule Jaworwski who had 40 years of experience examining glaciers and laud the UN IPCC report which has bogus, disproven glaicial crap about
Himilayian retreating glaciers that is easily proven to be ficticious and generated by one of these BS enviro NGO groups who say; "if questioned about statistics, make them up on the spot."

These people have an agenda and are funded by the people who stand to make billions of dollars by manipulating political policy.

I don't find it all that amusing.



TennTradition said:
I am not suggesting that everyone that argues against AGW theory is being unscientific. I did, however, point out that your posts on the subject often lack a certain scientific quality.

You seem to make a lot of generalizations about the words I post, including rash judgements about the value of my posts based on (as evidenced above) an apparent lack of reading comprehension.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I procuce a detailed deconstruct of AGW by Lindzen that disproves the whole AGW theory in that there should be atmosperic GW according to AGW that proves the whole theory wrong and all you can say is that Lindzen is a contrarian and probably senile.

Your response is scientific only in the sense that it is a political science sense.

You talk about those who disagree with him who use computer models but he competently dispels the basic theory with scientific facts but then you argue that his age makes his argument false.

Let me point out your scientific argument is only scietific in the sense of political science.

You seem to me to be about as concerned with real scientists as the Union of Concerned Scientists of your alma mater as anything else.


wounded mullet said:
You are going to get a large image dump for that last comment mister.
Click to expand...

Some kind of dump is that post deserves.

poopbag.jpg




IPorange said:
Spoke too soon. A full-scale snowpocalypse has broken out over the last 12 hours.
Click to expand...

Following the lead of Tenntrad, you remind me of Me-too.


pigsj.jpg
 
#63
#63
AccuWeather.com - Weather News | Severe Arctic Outbreak Forecast for Mid-January

AccuWeather.com Long Range Expert Joe Bastardi says that while much of the eastern half of the nation will start the month with above-normal warmth, brutal cold will roll southward from the Arctic during weeks two and three of the month.

"The worst of the cold will lie over the northern Plains and Upper Midwest but will spread out from there," Bastardi said.
Click to expand...

Coldest January since 1985 is forecasted.

The guy is also predicting that the sea ice "shrinking trend" will reverse this summer
 
#64
#64
666 said:
It's homos' fault gs.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that's why the weather sucks??

2n7kao.jpg


BTW, wikileaks revealed that the US tried to
bribe some of the skeptical smaller countries
into signing on at last years Copenhagen
meeting.
 
#66
#66
You know what, I quit. These guys have officially gone crazy.

Just watched the last 15 minutes of a show on the Green Channel (DirecTV) called "The Volcano that Stopped the World". They basically said that if global warming continues, the ice above the Icelandic volcanoes will melt, and thus relieve the pressure that is holding the volcanoes back right now. They also went on to say that what we saw last year will be nothing in comparison to what might happen if some of these ice covered volcanoes erupt. Finally, they stated that there is a historical correlation between rising temperatures and increased volcano activity.

Discuss... the show comes back on again in 2 hours or so if you want to DVR it.
 
Last edited:
#67
#67
On the bright side, more volcanoes could put sulfur into the atmosphere and temporarily reverse said warming.

I think that while possible, they are likely taking this and running away with it for the sake of a scary story. It's like the stupid shows on Y2K back in the day.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#68
#68
They're reaching on some connections here. Yes, there is potential for serious eruptions, but I don't think ice cover is that much of a factor. I am certainly skeptical of claims of increased volcanic activity during warmer climate. Increased volcanic activity typically cools climate.
 
#69
#69
IPorange said:
They're reaching on some connections here. Yes, there is potential for serious eruptions, but I don't think ice cover is that much of a factor.
Click to expand...

It'd have to be some very serious amounts of ice to hold back the amount of pressure in a volcanic eruption.
 
#70
#70
VOLatile said:
It'd have to be some very serious amounts of ice to hold back the amount of pressure in a volcanic eruption.
Click to expand...

That's just it: wouldn't increased surface pressure be just as likely to help trigger an eruption? Like squeezing a pimple?
 
#71
#71
IPorange said:
That's just it: wouldn't increased surface pressure be just as likely to help trigger an eruption? Like squeezing a pimple?
Click to expand...

One would think, but what kind of surface pressure would it take to "pop" a volcano? I mean, it is a hollowed out mountain. I'm thinking more in the way of a beer bottle cap. Decreased surface pressure certainly wouldn't hurt if the volcano isn't already bubbling at the seams.
 
#75
#75
just like the guy who wrote the recent NYT article that unwittingly destroyed the AGW alarmists' entire argument.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top