Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,176
#1,176
Persian Vol said:
I find it very ironic for you to use a .gov link lol. But yeah seems interesting. 2 questions, do you have any theories on why the world goes through radical temperature changes, and don't you think it is a bit suspicious that the temperature started picking up post industrial revolution exponentially on the graph.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call long periods of warming and cooling radical temperature changes. The truth is we haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the "settled science" of manmade global warming. The planet was a thick, soupy atmosphere of carbon dioxide 100 million years ago when there was very little oxygen. Like I said, we've de-gassed the planet over that time. Hundreds of factors affect weather and the climate. Every 20,000 years the earth wobbles on its axis, creating extreme and erratic weather patterns. Solar output, the driver behind our weather, is changing constantly. Water vapor is by far a more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Ozone in the stratosphere protects us from solar radiation, but it's a dangerous pollutant near the surface.

The idea that a rise in CO2 levels from 350ppm to 400ppm over a couple hundred years is going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect and wipe out a large chunk of humanity is utter nonsense. Every 50 years we have an eco-scare created by people as a means of control. The world was supposed to run out of food in the early 90s, and now we have an abundance of wheat on the world's stage. The polar ice caps, according to Al Gore and the BBC, would by completely gone by..... yep.... 2013. We see how that worked out.
 
#1,177
#1,177
Persian Vol said:
I find it very ironic for you to use a .gov link lol. But yeah seems interesting. 2 questions, do you have any theories on why the world goes through radical temperature changes, and don't you think it is a bit suspicious that the temperature started picking up post industrial revolution exponentially on the graph.
Click to expand...

Exponentially? You do understand what exponentially means? The biggest change I've seen alarmists talk about is 6 degrees which I don't believe but if it was true you're calling that exponentially? Also, to answer your other question many believe the Earth's climate cycles are due to Solar cycles. Have you ever read about the Sun and its cycles? Some are decades long and some are centuries long. Thirdly, what do you think caused the numerous ice ages when men were running around in loin cloths and chucking spears?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,178
#1,178
Gannon Goodson said:
I wouldn't call long periods of warming and cooling radical temperature changes. The truth is we haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the "settled science" of manmade global warming. The planet was a thick, soupy atmosphere of carbon dioxide 100 million years ago when there was very little oxygen. Like I said, we've de-gassed the planet over that time. Hundreds of factors affect weather and the climate. Every 20,000 years the earth wobbles on its axis, creating extreme and erratic weather patterns. Solar output, the driver behind our weather, is changing constantly. Water vapor is by far a more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Ozone in the stratosphere protects us from solar radiation, but it's a dangerous pollutant near the surface.

The idea that a rise in CO2 levels from 350ppm to 400ppm over a couple hundred years is going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect and wipe out a large chunk of humanity is utter nonsense. Every 50 years we have an eco-scare created by people as a means of control. The world was supposed to run out of food in the early 90s, and now we have an abundance of wheat on the world's stage. The polar ice caps, according to Al Gore and the BBC, would by completely gone by..... yep.... 2013. We see how that worked out.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention the acid rain and the ozone depletion. Those didn't work out either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,179
#1,179
Gannon Goodson said:
I wouldn't call long periods of warming and cooling radical temperature changes. The truth is we haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the "settled science" of manmade global warming. The planet was a thick, soupy atmosphere of carbon dioxide 100 million years ago when there was very little oxygen. Like I said, we've de-gassed the planet over that time. Hundreds of factors affect weather and the climate. Every 20,000 years the earth wobbles on its axis, creating extreme and erratic weather patterns. Solar output, the driver behind our weather, is changing constantly. Water vapor is by far a more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Ozone in the stratosphere protects us from solar radiation, but it's a dangerous pollutant near the surface.

The idea that a rise in CO2 levels from 350ppm to 400ppm over a couple hundred years is going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect and wipe out a large chunk of humanity is utter nonsense. Every 50 years we have an eco-scare created by people as a means of control. The world was supposed to run out of food in the early 90s, and now we have an abundance of wheat on the world's stage. The polar ice caps, according to Al Gore and the BBC, would by completely gone by..... yep.... 2013. We see how that worked out.
Click to expand...

From 350 to 400 over a couple hundred years? Try 25 years.
 
#1,180
#1,180
Sandvol said:
Exponentially? You do understand what exponentially means? The biggest change I've seen alarmists talk about is 6 degrees which I don't believe but if it was true you're calling that exponentially? Also, to answer your other question many believe the Earth's climate cycles are due to Solar cycles. Have you ever read about the Sun and its cycles? Some are decades long and some are centuries long. Thirdly, what do you think caused the numerous ice ages when men were running around in loin cloths and chucking spears?
Click to expand...

The graph seemed to be skewed exponentially up toward the 1800s and later. I understand that there are other plausible reasons for global warming. But acknowledging the existence of occurrences without the prescense of the current factor does not mean the current factor is proved invalid.
 
#1,181
#1,181
Gannon Goodson said:
I wouldn't call long periods of warming and cooling radical temperature changes. The truth is we haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the "settled science" of manmade global warming. The planet was a thick, soupy atmosphere of carbon dioxide 100 million years ago when there was very little oxygen. Like I said, we've de-gassed the planet over that time. Hundreds of factors affect weather and the climate. Every 20,000 years the earth wobbles on its axis, creating extreme and erratic weather patterns. Solar output, the driver behind our weather, is changing constantly. Water vapor is by far a more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Ozone in the stratosphere protects us from solar radiation, but it's a dangerous pollutant near the surface.

The idea that a rise in CO2 levels from 350ppm to 400ppm over a couple hundred years is going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect and wipe out a large chunk of humanity is utter nonsense. Every 50 years we have an eco-scare created by people as a means of control. The world was supposed to run out of food in the early 90s, and now we have an abundance of wheat on the world's stage. The polar ice caps, according to Al Gore and the BBC, would by completely gone by..... yep.... 2013. We see how that worked out.
Click to expand...

To your point on water vapor
Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works
 
#1,182
#1,182
TennTradition said:
From 350 to 400 over a couple hundred years? Try 25 years.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what ppm stands for?

It's parts per million, take 350 black marbles and mix them in with a million white ones. Find the black ones. Add 50 more black ones and see if there is a difference.
 
#1,183
#1,183
Persian Vol said:
The graph seemed to be skewed exponentially up toward the 1800s and later. I understand that there are other plausible reasons for global warming. But acknowledging the existence of occurrences without the prescense of the current factor does not mean the current factor is proved invalid.
Click to expand...

How far back do we ave reliable records? Early 1800s maybe?
 
#1,184
#1,184
Gannon Goodson said:
I wouldn't call long periods of warming and cooling radical temperature changes. The truth is we haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the "settled science" of manmade global warming. The planet was a thick, soupy atmosphere of carbon dioxide 100 million years ago when there was very little oxygen. Like I said, we've de-gassed the planet over that time. Hundreds of factors affect weather and the climate. Every 20,000 years the earth wobbles on its axis, creating extreme and erratic weather patterns. Solar output, the driver behind our weather, is changing constantly. Water vapor is by far a more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Ozone in the stratosphere protects us from solar radiation, but it's a dangerous pollutant near the surface.

The idea that a rise in CO2 levels from 350ppm to 400ppm over a couple hundred years is going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect and wipe out a large chunk of humanity is utter nonsense. Every 50 years we have an eco-scare created by people as a means of control. The world was supposed to run out of food in the early 90s, and now we have an abundance of wheat on the world's stage. The polar ice caps, according to Al Gore and the BBC, would by completely gone by..... yep.... 2013. We see how that worked out.
Click to expand...

Thought this guy made a point.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
 
#1,185
#1,185
hog88 said:
Do you have any idea what ppm stands for?

It's parts per million, take 350 black marbles and mix them in with a million white ones. Find the black ones. Add 50 more black ones and see if there is a difference.
Click to expand...

I think in the situation we are talking, 50 ppm does make solid impact. Considering GG said earlier that with 200 ppm we would be covered in ice.
 
#1,186
#1,186
hog88 said:
Do you have any idea what ppm stands for?

It's parts per million, take 350 black marbles and mix them in with a million white ones. Find the black ones. Add 50 more black ones and see if there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Haha. Yes. I know what ppm means.

The definition of ppm has nothing to do with the inaccurate statement I was referring to in my post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,187
#1,187
Gannon Goodson said:
I wouldn't call long periods of warming and cooling radical temperature changes. The truth is we haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the "settled science" of manmade global warming. The planet was a thick, soupy atmosphere of carbon dioxide 100 million years ago when there was very little oxygen. Like I said, we've de-gassed the planet over that time. Hundreds of factors affect weather and the climate. Every 20,000 years the earth wobbles on its axis, creating extreme and erratic weather patterns. Solar output, the driver behind our weather, is changing constantly. Water vapor is by far a more dangerous greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Ozone in the stratosphere protects us from solar radiation, but it's a dangerous pollutant near the surface.

The idea that a rise in CO2 levels from 350ppm to 400ppm over a couple hundred years is going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect and wipe out a large chunk of humanity is utter nonsense. Every 50 years we have an eco-scare created by people as a means of control. The world was supposed to run out of food in the early 90s, and now we have an abundance of wheat on the world's stage. The polar ice caps, according to Al Gore and the BBC, would by completely gone by..... yep.... 2013. We see how that worked out.
Click to expand...

More for your thoughts.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
 
#1,192
#1,192
Gannon Goodson said:
That site is heavily biased and it doesn't present both sides of the argument. As for your other post, I didn't say we'd be covered in ice at 200 parts per million. I said plant life would begin to die.
Click to expand...

Just because the website displays an explanation against the myths does not guarantee it is biased. And it acknowledges the myths and reasonings behind it and then clarifies with scientific reasonings. Not sure what more you could ask for.

Fair enough
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top