Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#2,280
#2,280
tumscalcium said:
The dinosaurs may also disagree with that whole extinction thing.

Maybe he'll answer me someday. Sigh.
Click to expand...

Answer what? Maybe you'll actually ask me a question someday.

Our current rate of extinction is at least on par with the one that took out the dinosaurs-- an estimated 140,000 species per year. You think the dinosaurs died on impact? Or do you think they all died in the global flood? Like most 'skeptics' you seem to have a poor grasp on time scales

Holocene Extinction wiki

Jon Stewart had Elizabeth Kolbert, author of The Sixth Extinction, on a few weeks back. Interesting segment
 
Last edited:
#2,283
#2,283
BartW said:
Answer what? Maybe you'll actually ask me a question someday.

Our current rate of extinction is faster than the one that took out the dinosaurs. You think they all died on impact? Or do you think they all died in the global flood? Like most 'skeptics' you seem to have a poor grasp on time scales
Click to expand...

What was the temperature in the Savannah area, or as close to the area, on March 3, 719000BC? I'm going to compare it to how tomorrow plays out. If you can grab me the mean global temperature that day it would be great as well. Thanks.

I asked this already. You posted a worthless graph that answered nothing. A simple "I don't know" will suffice. So much for your moronic response.

The earth is 4 1/2 billions years old and you're worried about the last 30. Your grasp on times scales is non-existent. Though I expect nothing less from a guy who thinks financially raping people even more will solve all the problems. Oh, even your most liberal sites mention this as the worst mass extinction since the dinosaurs.

Cool ghost stories brah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,284
#2,284
BartW said:
Don't even try explaining how global warming can cause extreme cold weather events. That's begging to get flamed :popcorn:
Click to expand...

Lol. Most folks are vehemently opposed to the whole idea of global warming and the threat it poses to their way of thinking/life. It is far easier to attack the messenger than to actuality analyze the evidence and draw a logical inference as to what it means. Especially when you try to explain the way it will lead to a cooling affect on the earths atmosphere. How in the hell can being too warm lead to being too cold is the common refrain.

I don't even know what "argument" the anti global warming crowd is even making. It is more or less just making the proponents constantly defend their case, without any real evidence from their side that GW doesn't exist. Like if they deny and ignore it, it will just go away on it's own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,285
#2,285
tumscalcium said:
What was the temperature in the Savannah area, or as close to the area, on March 3, 719000BC? I'm going to compare it to how tomorrow plays out. If you can grab me the mean global temperature that day it would be great as well. Thanks.

I asked this already. You posted a worthless graph that answered nothing. A simple "I don't know" will suffice. So much for your moronic response.

The earth is 4 1/2 billions years old and you're worried about the last 30. Your grasp on times scales is non-existent. Though I expect nothing less from a guy who thinks financially raping people even more will solve all the problems. Oh, even your most liberal sites mention this as the worst mass extinction since the dinosaurs.

Cool ghost stories brah.
Click to expand...

I replied to your OP

BartW said:
I can't tell you what it was that day, but I can tell you the mean global temperature for that epoch.
Click to expand...

You be trollin bruh
 
#2,287
#2,287
New paper finds lows of Arctic sea ice in 2007 and 2012 were due to storms

A new paper published in The Cryosphere finds that the 2 recent lows in Arctic sea ice over the past decade during 2007 and 2012 were strongly related to storm activity, rather than a long-term effect of climate change. According to the authors, "Strong summer storms on the Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean may have been important contributions to the recent [Arctic sea ice minimums] in 2007 and 2012." Arctic sea ice strongly rebounded in 2013 by up to 78% in comparison to 2012, suggesting the 2007 and 2012 lows were just natural variation.




The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding Arctic sea ice extent is due to natural variability from winds and storms, not AGW.

The Arctic sea ice minimums in 2007 [purple] and 2012 [orange] were strongly related to storm activity, not AGW.


The Cryosphere, 8, 303-317, 2014
www.the-cryosphere.net/8/303/2014/
doi:10.5194/tc-8-303-2014
 
#2,288
#2,288
PimpVol said:
Lol. Most folks are vehemently opposed to the whole idea of global warming and the threat it poses to their way of thinking/life. It is far easier to attack the messenger than to actuality analyze the evidence and draw a logical inference as to what it means. Especially when you try to explain the way it will lead to a cooling affect on the earths atmosphere. How in the hell can being too warm lead to being too cold is the common refrain.

I don't even know what "argument" the anti global warming crowd is even making. It is more or less just making the proponents constantly defend their case, without any real evidence from their side that GW doesn't exist. Like if they deny and ignore it, it will just go away on it's own.
Click to expand...

Their argument, in summary, is "Science is just too darn complicated, no way nobody could know all that stuff!"

They ignore the fact (or are told otherwise by faux newz) that 98% of climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming and 100% of the world's national scientific organizations acknowledge AGW. Or they just can't admit that they don't understand something, and refuse to submit to the authority of specialists in their fields.

As a last resort, they claim it's a global conspiracy theory to lower their quality of life. The science communazis are in cahoots with Obozo and Manbearpig, rabblerabblerabble

:no:
 
#2,289
#2,289
New paper falsifies climate model predictions at 95% confidence level, "very low" chance they could have predicted the "pause"



A new paper published in Nature Climate Change deals a near-fatal blow to climate models, finding the chances were "very low" that the models could have predicted the 'pause' in global warming over the past 20 years. The paper is lead authored by John Fyfe, a co-chair of the IPCC, who also published a recent paper in Nature finding that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for the past 20 years.

The paper falsifies climate model simulations at a 95% confidence level, stating, "the observed trends over this period lie outside the 5–95% range of simulated trends, or in other words, they are inconsistent with the simulated combination of internal variability and response to natural and anthropogenic forcings."
 
#2,290
#2,290
Sandvol said:
New paper finds lows of Arctic sea ice in 2007 and 2012 were due to storms

A new paper published in The Cryosphere finds that the 2 recent lows in Arctic sea ice over the past decade during 2007 and 2012 were strongly related to storm activity, rather than a long-term effect of climate change. According to the authors, "Strong summer storms on the Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean may have been important contributions to the recent [Arctic sea ice minimums] in 2007 and 2012." Arctic sea ice strongly rebounded in 2013 by up to 78% in comparison to 2012, suggesting the 2007 and 2012 lows were just natural variation.




The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding Arctic sea ice extent is due to natural variability from winds and storms, not AGW.

The Arctic sea ice minimums in 2007 [purple] and 2012 [orange] were strongly related to storm activity, not AGW.


The Cryosphere, 8, 303-317, 2014
www.the-cryosphere.net/8/303/2014/
doi:10.5194/tc-8-303-2014
Click to expand...

Welcome back SV. Did you read the paper (or even the abstract), or just the skeptic synopsis?

2013_Arctic_Escalator_500.gif
 
#2,293
#2,293
Sandvol said:
New paper falsifies climate model predictions at 95% confidence level, "very low" chance they could have predicted the "pause"



A new paper published in Nature Climate Change deals a near-fatal blow to climate models, finding the chances were "very low" that the models could have predicted the 'pause' in global warming over the past 20 years. The paper is lead authored by John Fyfe, a co-chair of the IPCC, who also published a recent paper in Nature finding that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for the past 20 years.

The paper falsifies climate model simulations at a 95% confidence level, stating, "the observed trends over this period lie outside the 5–95% range of simulated trends, or in other words, they are inconsistent with the simulated combination of internal variability and response to natural and anthropogenic forcings."
Click to expand...

Again, maybe read or at least reference the paper before giving the skeptic synopsis?

Escalator_2012_500.gif
 
#2,294
#2,294
orangeslice13 said:
I just build them but I'm checking with the guys who know.
I'll let you know what they say.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Slice.

I'm curious because our system that we installed last year here in SoCal has worked out very well and I am considering installing one at our home in east TN. I know the number of sunny days is different, but if I can get a ball park from someone in the know, that would be helpful.

Do you have a solar array at your home? If so, how does it perform vs expectations?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,296
#2,296
Danl said:
Thanks, Slice.

I'm curious because our system that we installed last year here in SoCal has worked out very well and I am considering installing one at our home in east TN. I know the number of sunny days is different, but if I can get a ball park from someone in the know, that would be helpful.

Do you have a solar array at your home? If so, how does it perform vs expectations?
Click to expand...

Not yet.
I have it. Have not installed it. Typical contractor I guess. Lulz
 
#2,297
#2,297
Sandvol said:
New paper finds lows of Arctic sea ice in 2007 and 2012 were due to storms

A new paper published in The Cryosphere finds that the 2 recent lows in Arctic sea ice over the past decade during 2007 and 2012 were strongly related to storm activity, rather than a long-term effect of climate change. According to the authors, "Strong summer storms on the Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean may have been important contributions to the recent [Arctic sea ice minimums] in 2007 and 2012." Arctic sea ice strongly rebounded in 2013 by up to 78% in comparison to 2012, suggesting the 2007 and 2012 lows were just natural variation.




The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding Arctic sea ice extent is due to natural variability from winds and storms, not AGW.

The Arctic sea ice minimums in 2007 [purple] and 2012 [orange] were strongly related to storm activity, not AGW.


The Cryosphere, 8, 303-317, 2014
www.the-cryosphere.net/8/303/2014/
doi:10.5194/tc-8-303-2014
Click to expand...


World of Change: Collapse of the Larsen-B Ice Shelf : Feature Articles

Larsen Ice Shelf
 
#2,298
#2,298
BartW said:
I replied to your OP



You be trollin bruh
Click to expand...

1. With no answer. That's been established.

2. Makes no sense. You can only give a vague representative sample of a bubble of air in an Antarctic ice core that can represent only a large amount of time. Yet, y'all get upset over a Hurricane or one winter from the present.

I don't give two craps is AGW is real. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The evidence is laughable at best. Maybe it means something, maybe not. I'm concerned with what you people want to do about it. Taxing me even more to throw at companies that donate to particular political parties only to waste said funds doing nothing isn't going to help. Especially if it's only a couple of countries that do it. Would it be great to live in a pollution-free world? Absolutely. Is it feasible within the next thousands of years? Hell no. Until you come up with real, feasible non-intrusive ideas, keep it to yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,299
#2,299
orangeslice13 said:
Not yet.
I have it. Have not installed it. Typical contractor I guess. Lulz
Click to expand...

LOL, I hear ya.

6300kwh/year is a lot less than I was hoping for. I have a 24 panel system here that generates almost 12000kwh/year @ 5.1kw/h max. I'm still going to run the numbers to see what the ROI would be.

Thanks again for the input, Slice.
 
#2,300
#2,300
BartW said:
Again, maybe read or at least reference the paper before giving the skeptic synopsis?

Escalator_2012_500.gif
Click to expand...

Let's see all the data...not just the last 30-40 yrs.

How significant is the increase in temperature compared to 100, 200, 500, 2000, 10000, 30000 years ago?

What is the definitive proof that fossil fuels / greenhouse gases is the main contributing factor?

I am a skeptic, but that doesn't make me stupid or ignorant.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top