Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#6,076
#6,076
Sandvol said:
No, what they're saying is nature is contributing a negative 10% and man is contributing 110%. We'd be cooling if it wasn't for evil mankind.
Click to expand...

I’m amazed I just decoded BOT’s gibberish from your (less) wrong post. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for ~110% of the observed warming, but the primary cooling influence has actually been human sulfate pollution.

From that article:
The black bar indicates the amount of global surface warming observed from 1951 to 2010. The green bar shows the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions during that time. The yellow is the influence from other human effects (mainly cooling from human sulfate aerosol emissions, which scatter sunlight), and the orange is the combined human effect. Below those are the contributions from external natural factors (mainly the sun and volcanoes) and from natural internal variability (mainly ocean cycles), while the whiskers show the uncertainty range for each.

ipcc_fig_10.5.jpg

IPCC AR5 figure 10.5: Likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for attributable warming trends over the 1951–2010 period due to greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings (OA), natural forcings (NAT), combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT) and internal variability. The HadCRUT4 observations are shown in black.

Notice that the green and orange bars are both bigger than the black bar. This shows that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed over the past six decades, but some of that was offset by cooling from human aerosol pollution. And the best estimate from the body of peer-reviewed climate science research is that humans are responsible for more than 100% of the global surface warming since 1950, with natural factors probably offsetting a little bit of that with a slight cooling influence
Click to expand...

The natural cooling you’re alluding to is even less significant than other anthropogenic forcings. It turns out the scientific consensus is that natural forcings and internal variability (i.e. “natural cycles”) just aren’t as significant as human influences
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,078
#6,078
Sandvol said:
Bart likes to trumpet his Dutch heritage because you know how enlightened they are and all-the windmills and the tulips. (Not to mention the prostitution and drugs.)
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the cheese! Here’s my positive news of the day, courtesy of the motherland

Meet the “clean cow” technology that could help fight climate change

First, let’s get one thing straight. Despite what you may have heard, it is cow burps, not cow farts, that are the real climate change problem.

Here’s how it works: Cows digest their food in four-part stomachs, including a “rumen,” which is a site that allows for fermentation — a process that gives off a lot of carbon dioxide and methane gas, as microorganisms aid in the process of digestion. That gas has to get out of the cow’s body somehow — hence, burps. “Approximately 132 to 264 gallons of ruminal gas produced by fermentation are belched each day,” notes the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences.

And because we have so many cows — where would human civilization be without them? — this really adds up. Indeed, according to the EPA, so-called “enteric fermentation” in cows and other ruminant animals, like sheep and goats, contributed 26 percent of the country’s total emissions of methane, a hard-hitting greenhouse gas with much greater short term warming consequences than carbon dioxide does (though the latter packs a far greater long-term punch).

Globally, meanwhile, methane emissions from livestock are an even bigger problem. Overall, the livestock supply chain emits 44 percent of the globe’s human caused methane, according to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization — and a large slice of that comes from cattle’s methane burps.


But one fundamental way of fixing the problem involves trying to change the chemistry of what’s happening in cows’ rumens — after all, methane emissions represent lost food energy that could have gone towards cow growth or milk production. For some time now, the Dutch life sciences and materials company DSM has been pursuing such a solution, which it appropriately calls its “Clean Cow” project.

DSM is a Netherlands-based life and materials sciences giant with ten billion euros in annual sales — including 32 percent of its market in animal feed. The company has created a powder that can be added to cow feed that, it says, can produce “a reduction of over 30% in methane emissions with no negative impact on animal welfare, performance, or the amount of feed they consume.” And now, newly published science backs this idea up.
Click to expand...
 
#6,079
#6,079
Dumbass president passes stupid EO's that will drastically raise energy costs and not do a damn thing for the environment.

See W, I can post BS too. Problem is mine is actually true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,080
#6,080
fool
noun \ˈfül\
: a person who lacks good sense or judgment : a stupid or silly person

: a person who enjoys something very much

: a dessert made with cooked fruit and cream or a thick sauce

shill
intransitive verb \ˈshil\
: to talk about or describe someone or something in a favorable way because you are being paid to do it

BartW, please tell me why you aren't one or both of the above? With this foolish move today, the joke that is in the White House has killed thousands of jobs and will cost people thousands of dollars in increased energy costs. With real unemployment rates still at record highs, no job recovery in site, and more people every day dropping out of the workforce, this president has further increased the hatred that many people have and WILL hold for him in the future. Please tell me how the US is going to have ANY effect on what is described as man made global warming. So far everything that you have thrown out has more holes in it that the ozone was supposed to have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,081
#6,081
82_VOL_83 said:
fool
noun \ˈfül\
: a person who lacks good sense or judgment : a stupid or silly person

: a person who enjoys something very much

: a dessert made with cooked fruit and cream or a thick sauce

shill
intransitive verb \ˈshil\
: to talk about or describe someone or something in a favorable way because you are being paid to do it

BartW, please tell me why you aren't one or both of the above? With this foolish move today, the joke that is in the White House has killed thousands of jobs and will cost people thousands of dollars in increased energy costs. With real unemployment rates still at record highs, no job recovery in site, and more people every day dropping out of the workforce, this president has further increased the hatred that many people have and WILL hold for him in the future. Please tell me how the US is going to have ANY effect on what is described as man made global warming. So far everything that you have thrown out has more holes in it that the ozone was supposed to have.
Click to expand...
Throwback to ozone denial? Smooth.

If I have to pick I'll go with "a person who enjoys something very much".

I've given my views on Obama's climate plan (though I haven't seen a detailed analysis of the final version yet). It's not great; there are much better options out there. He didn't have much of a choice though. You reap what you sow
82_VOL_83 said:
Dumbass president passes stupid EO's that will drastically raise energy costs and not do a damn thing for the environment.

See W, I can post BS too. Problem is mine is actually true.
Click to expand...
The old "we shouldn't act until China does" argument, while cowardly, at least held some water back in the day. But now that China is cutting emissions and the world is seeking a new climate treaty, what's your excuse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6,082
#6,082
BartW said:
Throwback to ozone denial? Smooth.

If I have to pick I'll go with "a person who enjoys something very much".

I've given my views on Obama's climate plan (though I haven't seen a detailed analysis of the final version yet). It's not great; there are much better options out there. He didn't have much of a choice though. You reap what you sow

The old "we shouldn't act until China does" argument, while cowardly, at least held some water back in the day. But now that China is cutting emissions and the world is seeking a new climate treaty, what's your excuse?
Click to expand...

What proof do you have that China is indeed cutting coal emissions ? Other than their economy has slowed down I can't see them doing it out of a sense of goodwill towards us or the environment.
 
#6,084
#6,084
BartW said:
I’m amazed I just decoded BOT’s gibberish from your (less) wrong post. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for ~110% of the observed warming, but the primary cooling influence has actually been human sulfate pollution.

From that article:

The natural cooling you’re alluding to is even less significant than other anthropogenic forcings. It turns out the scientific consensus is that natural forcings and internal variability (i.e. “natural cycles”) just aren’t as significant as human influences
Click to expand...

So no anthropogenic green house gases or aerosols and the Earth's temperature is static? How'd all those ice ages happen?

(Also, what about that deep ocean heat sink you guys keep clamoring about?)
 
#6,086
#6,086
FLVOL69 said:
What proof do you have that China is indeed cutting coal emissions ? Other than their economy has slowed down I can't see them doing it out of a sense of goodwill towards us or the environment.
Click to expand...

He absolutely has no sense of reality.
 
#6,087
#6,087
Nice to see BartW still fighting the good fight in this thread and giving all the naysayers a beatdown of epic proportions. Common sense and scientific data will always trump hyper-partisanship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#6,088
#6,088
TN Ribs said:
Nice to see BartW still fighting the good fight in this thread and giving all the naysayers a beatdown of epic proportions. Common sense and scientific data will always trump hyper-partisanship.
Click to expand...

You and orangluvr came up for air at about the same time tonight. Run out of cheetohs and pbr?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6,089
#6,089
TN Ribs said:
Nice to see BartW still fighting the good fight in this thread and giving all the naysayers a beatdown of epic proportions. Common sense and scientific data will always trump hyper-partisanship.
Click to expand...

It's even better to watch Bart supporters like yourself come up every now and then to cheer on your champion while he is made to look like a fool over and over again. Bart wouldn't know true scientific data if it smacked him in the face. But hey, every Curly needs a Moe and Larry to help him out so, congrats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,090
#6,090
BigOrangeTrain said:
It's even better to watch Bart supporters like yourself come up every now and then to cheer on your champion while he is made to look like a fool over and over again. Bart wouldn't know true scientific data if it smacked him in the face. But hey, every Curly needs a Moe and Larry to help him out so, congrats.
Click to expand...

I just stumbled into this thread, read the past few pages, and it is quite obvious that Bart has presented data, opinions, news articles, etc. that tend to support his stance on warming. On the other hand, the naysayers present very little in the debate other than childish retort. Feel free to go back a few pages then glean forward, then think about rebutting Bart's post's with some meaningful input that could actually challenge Barts stance. Or keep up the childish antics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#6,091
#6,091
TN Ribs said:
Nice to see BartW still fighting the good fight in this thread and giving all the naysayers a beatdown of epic proportions. Common sense and scientific data will always trump hyper-partisanship.
Click to expand...

I never do it but I thought people usually use blue font for posts like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6,092
#6,092
TN Ribs said:
Nice to see BartW still fighting the good fight in this thread and giving all the naysayers a beatdown of epic proportions. Common sense and scientific data will always trump hyper-partisanship.
Click to expand...

carbon dioxide is bad mmmkay
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,094
#6,094
KoachKletus said:
I just stumbled into this thread, read the past few pages, and it is quite obvious that Bart has presented data, opinions, news articles, etc. that tend to support his stance on warming. On the other hand, the naysayers present very little in the debate other than childish retort. Feel free to go back a few pages then glean forward, then think about rebutting Bart's post's with some meaningful input that could actually challenge Barts stance. Or keep up the childish antics.
Click to expand...

How do you just "stumble" on to a thread that has thousands of posts and has been on the front page of the politics forum for over a year now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,097
#6,097
KoachKletus said:
I just stumbled into this thread, read the past few pages, and it is quite obvious that Bart has presented data, opinions, news articles, etc. that tend to support his stance on warming. On the other hand, the naysayers present very little in the debate other than childish retort. Feel free to go back a few pages then glean forward, then think about rebutting Bart's post's with some meaningful input that could actually challenge Barts stance. Or keep up the childish antics.
Click to expand...

After reading this post it's quite obvious where you stand. Oh and BTW, rebutting Bart's posts are a waste of time because anything that questions or refute his "data" he ignores. If anything refutable is posted and Bart doesn't agree, he inevitably posts silly retorts about science denialism, conspiracy theories and the tobacco industry. So there is that. But feel free to pop in and support Bart, he actually needs it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,099
#6,099
TN Ribs said:
Nice to see BartW still fighting the good fight in this thread and giving all the naysayers a beatdown of epic proportions. Common sense and scientific data will always trump hyper-partisanship.
Click to expand...

Maybe you and Bart can explain how this Clean Power Plan is going to save everyone money and create more net jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,100
#6,100
TN Ribs said:
Nice to see BartW still fighting the good fight in this thread and giving all the naysayers a beatdown of epic proportions. Common sense and scientific data will always trump hyper-partisanship.
Click to expand...

Oh, and by the way, the data doesn't give them the results they wanted so they adjusted it. How scientific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top