What evidence do you have that Al Gore has the ability to communicate with polar bears? I hope you realize what an extraordinary claim this is, as no one in human history has demonstrated the ability to converse with polar bears, or any type of bear for that matter.
A near certainty
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
This Just In------------------------
Hurricane Katherine just hit landfall with extreme wind speeds exceeding 35 miles per hour. Several people were killed and injured when their baseball hats were blown off, thus hitting someone nearby. President Obama has cancelled all golf trips and skeet shooting for the forseeable future and will travel to the devastated area. He has also sent FEMA to aid the survivors and deal with those who so bravely weathered the storm.
His comment was "this is another example of climate change and something I will sit down with congress and try to "correct" very soon. Something must be done".
Hurricane Katherine just hit landfall with extreme wind speeds exceeding 35 miles per hour. Several people were killed and injured when their baseball hats were blown off, thus hitting someone nearby. President Obama has cancelled all golf trips and skeet shooting for the forseeable future and will travel to the devastated area. He has also sent FEMA to aid the survivors and deal with those who so bravely weathered the storm.
His comment was "this is another example of climate change and something I will sit down with congress and try to "correct" very soon. Something must be done".
Hope everyone bundles up over the next few days. The forecast is zero degrees for a low. My "scientific" prediction is that it will be very close to that temp.
I guess we can now officially switch the term for our local climate to global cooling.
This post was edited on 12/4 5:45 PM by rabidTU
I guess we can now officially switch the term for our local climate to global cooling.
This post was edited on 12/4 5:45 PM by rabidTU
The oceanic carbon equilibrium comments directly contradict the IPCC stance on both acidification of the oceans due to increased carbon absorption and the "feedback loop" concept (in which warming atmosphere due to CO2 warms the oceans which in turn reduces the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 which accelerates atmospheric warming). Even NASA says that the oceans absorb roughly 48% of the excess CO2 that is emitted via industrialization (meaning that the oceans must absorb more than they release) which also tends to throw just a bit of cold water on that 300/300 gigaton swap factoid.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-4-2.html
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/
I guess Lawpoke isn't the only one here who is confused. Bummer.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-4-2.html
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/
I guess Lawpoke isn't the only one here who is confused. Bummer.
Like I said when this report first came out, when your models significantly over-estimate warming over the most recent 20 year period on 26 of 29 key measures how can you then have more certainty with said models going forward? When your conclusion is that your models failed to take into account unexpected naturally occurring factors which couldn't be predicted how can those same models which are still unable to account for such factors going forward gain reliability?
The 300/300 comment was regarding the ocean's ability to reabsorb its own carbon emissions. The same holds true for natural sources on land. In contrast, humans don't reabsorb the carbon dioxide we produce. This creates a burden on natural sinks that absorb more and more CO2 every year. I didn't mean to imply that these natural sources/sinks don't reabsorb more carbon than they emit, because they do. My point was that it's disingenous to suggest that human contributions are only a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.
Regarding your skepticism on the feedback loop, the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 is an equilibrium issue, where the fraction of global CO2 absorbed decreases with increasing temperature, but the increasing levels of global CO2 mean that the absolute CO2 absorbed increases even as that fraction is decreasing. As a result, atmospheric CO2 levels increase each year and so do the carbon stores in our natural sinks.
Does that answer your question?
Thanks voetvoet,
How does Greenland come into play as far as a land ice melting? Why does it not have the same effect on the northern sea ice cap. Your graph clearly shows the opposite is happening?
Thanks in advance
Go TU!!!
This post was edited on 12/10 9:56 AM by Tu Geo
Coldest temperature ever in Oklahoma was in Feb 2011 - 31 below.
Over half a million square miles of icepack added to the North Pole region in 2012.
The coldest temperature ever recorded/discovered in the world in Antarctica was 135 below this year.
Rare snowfall in Jerusalem and the desert regions of the eastern hemisphere this year..
If the reality doesn't match the science, you have "junk" science. Global Warming is just another lieberal notion to find a way to raise taxes, reward those that keep the lies alive and bankrupt that unfair capitalistic system, like Obamacare.
Next up, doubling the tax on gas at the pump.
This post was edited on 12/15 10:59 AM by rabidTU
Over half a million square miles of icepack added to the North Pole region in 2012.
The coldest temperature ever recorded/discovered in the world in Antarctica was 135 below this year.
Rare snowfall in Jerusalem and the desert regions of the eastern hemisphere this year..
If the reality doesn't match the science, you have "junk" science. Global Warming is just another lieberal notion to find a way to raise taxes, reward those that keep the lies alive and bankrupt that unfair capitalistic system, like Obamacare.
Next up, doubling the tax on gas at the pump.
This post was edited on 12/15 10:59 AM by rabidTU
A Reagan quote I remember once was about liberals "believing SO much that simply isn't so" - because like their idea of a Utopian society, it can never be reality because the reality always proves them wrong. And they (liberals) will do whatever is necessary to further those wrong ideas.
I think a lot of us have been watching and waiting to see what the winter was going to be like, end like, and now the evidence is in. The global warming myth has been revealed for what it is - a big fat lie.
BTW, the forecast in parts of Nebraska this coming week is more snow. High temps in this state will be in the 60's and lows in the 40"s. Anyone with the least bit of objectivity must come to the conclusion that the liberal pipe dreams of a world heating up to Mercurian temperatures is - WRONG.
But I'll lay odds that here in this state, we'll probably have a warm summer. Does that seasonal "trend" mean we are globally warming?
"Liberals believe so much that simply isn't so". Nuff said!
I think a lot of us have been watching and waiting to see what the winter was going to be like, end like, and now the evidence is in. The global warming myth has been revealed for what it is - a big fat lie.
BTW, the forecast in parts of Nebraska this coming week is more snow. High temps in this state will be in the 60's and lows in the 40"s. Anyone with the least bit of objectivity must come to the conclusion that the liberal pipe dreams of a world heating up to Mercurian temperatures is - WRONG.
But I'll lay odds that here in this state, we'll probably have a warm summer. Does that seasonal "trend" mean we are globally warming?
"Liberals believe so much that simply isn't so". Nuff said!
Did you just cite a cold week in Nebraska as evidence against global warming while simultaneously criticizing your opponents of potentially using a warm summer as argument in the future?
I'm honestly impressed by your ability to convince yourself that you're right in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. You should be a politician.
I'm honestly impressed by your ability to convince yourself that you're right in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. You should be a politician.
So you are saying that the reality of a colder year isn't at least some evidence that global warming is a myth?
Do you disagree this winter has been considerably colder than the last and that in using that "data", the trend is now down, not up? Or are you saying that you get to cherry pick whatever data you so desire to prove "your" point?
And I'm also impressed at the inability to be objective. A better word would be blinded and even biased. Isn't climate research supposed to be impartial and based on absolute facts? Isn't the fact that this winter was much colder than recent winters at least a trend to be investigated? Perhaps prejudice has blinded the science. If global warming is correct and to be universally accepted, why was this winter so cold?
Should it be snowing in Nebraska (if the prediction is correct) in May? And was it snowing in Nebraska last year or the year before? Shall we check the data? The facts? If global warming is for real, shouldn't this winter have been warmer? If the science doesn't fit the reality, the science is wrong . . . . . . . . "period. End of discussion." Now where've I heard that before?
And hey, if that immaculate 'politician' "Dirty Harry Reid" can be senate majority leader, anyone can. I bet he's an authority on global warming too. The POTUS is.
I would say the hardest part of arguing with you, Rabid, is that there's so many things you get wrong on this issue that I can hardly keep track of them all to respond. Let's start with this: The Earth consists of more than just the United States and it turns out it was pretty warm in many of those other places this winter.
So magically, the USA is the only region that has cooled? Nice find, but everyone should notice that the "base time period" is a span of almost 30 years. That raises a red flag that the data could be tainted and the time frame maipulated to come up with a desired result. And that proves very little about the present climate since it ended in 2012, thus recent data isn't included. I'm sure a more recent map would come up with a different outcome according to where it started. Was that left out on purpose?Originally posted by voetvoet:
I would say the hardest part of arguing with you, Rabid, is that there's so many things you get wrong on this issue that I can hardly keep track of them all to respond. Let's start with this: The Earth consists of more than just the United States and it turns out it was pretty warm in many of those other places this winter.
Besides, what does this map have to do with "man-made" global warming anyway? You'll have to prove that man has caused any fluctuation in rising temperature - and it hasn't been proven, only theorized. A computer model programmed by a university govt grant "getter" won't do.
Can I cherry pick my data as well? Should we have a cherry pickin contest? Let's start with Al (Nobel) Gore.
How do we know that this diagram just display the e arths normal climate, and that in maybe one hundred years the blue area will have shifted over Europe.
Can you come up with a post where I called you or any other poster a "name"? Please post it or you can just give my post number. Thanks - be my guest.
And is data derived from NASA a good "cherry pick" for this discussion. Its from this very thread btw. A data graph, chart, or drawing doesn't give as much "evidence" as does a real picture from space - Unless that picture was doctored. Data however, can be and evidently has been in the past.
See my "bumped" post.
See my next post.
No, actually its not, unless of course it reveals what the reader is in real life. You can't "childishly" offend someone who doesn't fit that term. Did I offend YOU in some way? Was it in some subliminal way a personal attack on you? Its not profanity is it? If you can come up with a time I've used profanity, please post it. And is the term "childish" an even greater attempt to do the same thing in reverse? A simple question.
One last thing is this. The Crossfire forum is admittedly designed and described to "Speak our minds on Politics, Current Affairs and War" so in that vein, we should all do so. I think that pretty much describes it as "opinion" oriented and not "message" based per say.
This post was edited on 4/29 1:34 PM by rabidTU
Thanks voet voet,
What is the overall effect of the increase in ice in the South polar area with the decrease in ice in the North polar regions? Does the ice increase/decrease have a canceling out effect. How does it effect sea level rise?
Antartica is 5,000,000 sq miles in size and contains over 90% of the ice that would cause sea level change. Do I understand that the study has ice increasing in this area? It seems that this is area where we should focus our research dollars. Floating ice has no impact on sea level change. Glacier melt is insignificant on a global scale too small to be meaning
ful. Antartica is the key it would seem.
Love the info voet voet.
Interesting "screen name" what does that mean. Sounds Dutch, Russian?
GO TU!!!
Global warming.
What is the basis forr this theory, when was it established and using what measurements?
What is the basis forr this theory, when was it established and using what measurements?
Just read the latest synopsis from the feds. I still see no cost-benefit analysis. For that matter I see very little information on what steps the U.S. can take and how much said steps will reduce the amount of global CO2 emissions being released and the expected results thereof.
I ask again...isn't this analysis the most important issue to be addressed if one believes in global warming and man's responsibility in the same?
I ask again...isn't this analysis the most important issue to be addressed if one believes in global warming and man's responsibility in the same?
Voet,
I'm here to help. Rabid and "atufan" are both idiots. Like the kind of idiots that would elect... Say... Sean Hannity. I recommend either mocking, name calling, or trolling. Intelligent discourse isn't their thing.
I'm here to help. Rabid and "atufan" are both idiots. Like the kind of idiots that would elect... Say... Sean Hannity. I recommend either mocking, name calling, or trolling. Intelligent discourse isn't their thing.
The argument is, it costs too much to do anything, so f-it? That's not good enough IMO. Some things don't have to financially viable to be worthy of attention. There's a lot this country has done over the years that were so clearly not viable financially. Too many to count in fact.
Originally posted by Ray Stantz:
Voet,
I'm here to help. Rabid and "atufan" are both idiots. Like the kind of idiots that would elect... Say... Sean Hannity. I recommend either mocking, name calling, or trolling. Intelligent discourse isn't their thing.
I agree that Ray Stantz should be able to recognize who/what an idiot is. It occurs everyday when he shaves in front of the mirror. Yes, I agree, he's an authority on the subject!
Oh and thanks for opening up the debate on Global Warming again since eveyone has their heat on tonight in mid-May in Oklahoma. Nice! Also very very funny.
This is all some of you have - to flame, personalize, demean and condemn? That isn't a real armgument and just encourages everyone who disagrees to shut up, which evidently is all some posters are able to do . When you call people you don't know derogatory names, that is an attempt to shut them up on an open message board designed to have open discussion.
But once again, the reality has not met the projected computer model, which means that model is dead wrong. Therefore the prediction is wrong.
Didn't Al Gore predict the ice caps would be melted by now and that most of New York City would be under water? If he is wrong, does that prediction make him the "idiot"? And if he's wrong yet still defended by a segment of society, then aren't they also a part of that idiocy? A simple question.
This post was edited on 5/16 11:09 AM by rabidTU
Dude you should be more ... I don't know... Trollish over here. It's more fun.
Dear Rabs,
You are permaignored. I'll never waste a second reading your demented thoughts ever again. I will, however, rile you up because you're a dummy and will argue with yourself for years on end.
Well Wishes,
The Docta
Ray Stantz posted on 5/14/2014...
_______________________________________________
I'm not arguing that it cost to much so F it. My question is what are the proposed "solutions", what are the costs, and what effect will they have if implemented by the U.S. on total global carbon emissions going forward and in turn what effect will it have on global warming?
I see all the arguments about global warming and the causes of the same but not a word as to proposed solutions and more importantly their effect on said warming. Isn't this THE most important question to be resolved? We live in reality. We do in fact have finite resources (money). Where said resources should be spent to ensure the least amount of disruption to our people and possibly even our survival is a vital question which must be asked. Yet, I'm the only one asking.
The key questions as I see them:
1) What measures should the U.S. implement?
2) What are the cost of these measures?
3) Where is the money coming from?
4) What net effect on total global CO2 emission will these measures have?
5) How much will said measures if instituted by the U.S. reduce global warming and over what period of time?
This post was edited on 5/16 11:29 AM by lawpoke87
The argument is, it costs too much to do anything, so f-it? That's not good enough IMO. Some things don't have to financially viable to be worthy of attention. There's a lot this country has done over the years that were so clearly not viable financially. Too many to count in fact.
_______________________________________________
I'm not arguing that it cost to much so F it. My question is what are the proposed "solutions", what are the costs, and what effect will they have if implemented by the U.S. on total global carbon emissions going forward and in turn what effect will it have on global warming?
I see all the arguments about global warming and the causes of the same but not a word as to proposed solutions and more importantly their effect on said warming. Isn't this THE most important question to be resolved? We live in reality. We do in fact have finite resources (money). Where said resources should be spent to ensure the least amount of disruption to our people and possibly even our survival is a vital question which must be asked. Yet, I'm the only one asking.
The key questions as I see them:
1) What measures should the U.S. implement?
2) What are the cost of these measures?
3) Where is the money coming from?
4) What net effect on total global CO2 emission will these measures have?
5) How much will said measures if instituted by the U.S. reduce global warming and over what period of time?
This post was edited on 5/16 11:29 AM by lawpoke87
The reason we have to get this right is also about the ones who'll suffer the most - the worlds poor. There are well over a billion people in the world wo electricity and other forms of energy (primarily) from fossil driven fuels. Many more than that don't have access to "reliable" power. Cheap electricity from coal (for instance) could remedy much of that. But as long as man caused global-cooling or man caused global warming or man caused climate change (or whatever its called now) is pushed, the poor will suffer the most, the longest and "the first". So as we spend triillions of dollars we don't have on something that probably doesn't exist, the world will be worse off, not better.
Thats what is at stake. A poorer, less prosperous, more dangerous world. If we make fossil fuel less accessable and more costly, those who'll suffer first are those who can't fight back. Most of the nations in the world would love to have our fracking technology, underground oil reserves and coal driven electricity. Thats the bottom line.
You ask very good questions. I'm not being a smart ass when I say that, but I know well enough when to say: "I don't the answer to this." I think we need to listen to people who do know, and you and I both know that's been a problem for years.
There's science, and there's scientists with an agenda.
Guess which this article is about.
I believe the climate continues to change, just as it has for millions of years. The argument has always been whether mankind is a significant or reversible influence or not.
Guess which this article is about.
I believe the climate continues to change, just as it has for millions of years. The argument has always been whether mankind is a significant or reversible influence or not.
There is science and then there is new science (aka "consensus"). Science comes with things like the "scientific method", hypothesis versus theory and a nice concept known as "Occam's Razor". New science gives us opinion and angst.
Global Warming/Climate Shift/Climate Disruption fails most if not all of the tests required to move a concept from hypothesis to theory. The only thing it has going for it is "consensus". I am suspect that had we taken the same approach to the antibiotics that we have taken towards climate science we would still be using sulfa drugs and tree moss for infections.
Anytime one who professes to be a scientist uses terms like "there is consensus" or "the science is settled" try and remember that at one time there was consensus that the sun orbited the earth .... and that the science of both General Relativity and Natural Selection is far from settled.
