Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-27-2015, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,315 posts, read 26,228,587 times
Reputation: 15648

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Yes, we know there have been several Ice Ages.
We know the magnetic poles have flipped several times.
We know the poles are constantly moving(toward Russia at the moment)
We know the earth's plates are constantly moving.
We know big things have hit the earth in the past.
We know forest fires burned for years.
We know cloud cover makes it warmer at night and cooler during the day

Other than that, our earth is not a static experiment. It is very dynamic.
Yes we know, we know the earths climate has always changed and will continue to change based on "natural events" but that is not the discussion. I'm not sure why that argument continues to be brought up as if you discovered the god particle.

 
Old 11-27-2015, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,315 posts, read 26,228,587 times
Reputation: 15648
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Well Ciest, I know that adjusted temperature models are not verifiable because they are just models, but satellite readings (AMSU) are verifiable because they are first calibrated and then the calibration is verified by measuring a known target area.


A study of the NOAA 16 AMSU-A brightness temperatures observed over Libyan Desert - Mo - 2002 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

What tool other than looking in the rearview mirror would you use to replace "models".


Quote:
A researcher from the University of Alaska Fairbanks is part of a NASA mission to get close-up photos of Pluto. Peter Delamere, a space physicist at the UAF Geophysical Institute, is modeling the solar wind’s interaction with Pluto’s escaping atmosphere
UAF researcher works on NASA New Horizons mission to Pluto | Geophysical Institute
 
Old 11-27-2015, 07:55 AM
 
4,873 posts, read 3,603,930 times
Reputation: 3881
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
What's your point? I'm confused.
If something happens naturally, it can't also happen due to man-made causes. Like how it gets dark when the sun goes down, which disproves the existence of blindfolds.
 
Old 11-27-2015, 08:37 AM
 
756 posts, read 424,997 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
If something happens naturally, it can't also happen due to man-made causes. Like how it gets dark when the sun goes down, which disproves the existence of blindfolds.

Posts like yours are starting to disprove the existence of intelligence in these debates.
 
Old 11-27-2015, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,492,759 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
If something happens naturally, it can't also happen due to man-made causes. Like how it gets dark when the sun goes down, which disproves the existence of blindfolds.
but the FACT is man has extremely little to due with any climate change...99% of the scientists say that mans part is less than 5%

actually 99% of the scientists and 99% of people understand that climate change always happens,,and the earth has warmed and cooled many,many,many, many times...all naturally


climate change is not a hoax or a myth.....but..."man-made" climate change is a hoax

most rational people understand that climate change always happens,,and the earth has warmed and cooled many,many,many, many times...all naturally

1. science shows the climate changes naturally

2. science shows that climate change is natural with co2, methane, water vapor, sun cycles, rotation of the earth, earths core activity, and weather patterns all having play in it

3. science shows that the earth has warmed and cooled many, many times, with the cycles be for the most part regular....but never EXACTLY the same

4. science shows that the co2 has been much, much higher...even in cooler times

5. science (and botany ) shows that plants grow much better in higher co2....1200ppm is optimum

6. science shows that a warmer climate is not a desert climate, but a tropical wetter climate...

7. science shows that warming will be better for humans, as we will have longer growing seasons, with less need for irrigation

8 science (and botany) shows that if co2 goes below 200ppm plants stop growing

9. science shows that humans may have a SMALL part, in climate change (less than 10%)...therefore making the fascist mantra of ''man-made/man-caused"" a LIE

10. common sense shows that a carbon tax, will NOT reduce anyones carbon footprint, but will make the fascist liberal rich, richer


11. SCIENCE says that the climate changes NATURALLY....why do the big ego liberals think that man HAS TO BE the cause....especially when NOT ONE SCIENTIST has proven it to be man made/man caused


12. everyone knows (and its scientifically proven) that climate has changed many, many times

13.. and yet NOT ONE scientist has proven MANMADE global warming...science does show.. the globe evolves. The global environment changes..periodically...there have been WARMER TIMES..there have been cooler times..there have been times when C02 was MUCH, MUCH higher


14. guess what our co2 levels are currently around 380-390ppm.... co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal


15. science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER... .guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for most plants is....900-1500 ppm.......


15a. Science shows plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration, as they tend to display lower stomatal conductance.

15b. Science shows the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area - or water-use efficiency - should increase dramatically as the air's CO2 content rises.

15c. Scinece and the study of science shows In the study of Serraj et al. (1999), soybeans grown at 700 ppm CO2 displayed 10 to 25% reductions in total water loss while simultaneously exhibiting increases in dry weight of as much as 33%. So, elevated CO2 significantly increased the water-use efficiencies of the studied plants.

15d. science shows, that the typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2.

15e. Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. (this is why companys and governments SELL CO2 generators for greenhouses)


15f. science shows it is clear that as the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, nearly all of earth's agricultural species will respond favorably by exhibiting increases in water-use efficiency... which means, one can expect global agricultural productivity to rise in tandem with future increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration.

so more co2 is actually GREENER...its not theory, its scientific fact

16. science shows that humans use oxygen and expel (exhale) co2

17. science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expels o2

18. science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush fertile land, not covered in ice

19. science shows us that Greenland was once a green lush fertile land, not covered with ice, in fact tropical like

20.. science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of glaciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)


and finally ....common sense states that as the earths population expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exhaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it


so endeth the lesson

the biggest question is why do the fascist brown shirt liberals deny science, and the fact , that the truth is it is a natural occurance , and that NOTHING WE DO will change or speedup, or slow, or stop the natural climate change
 
Old 11-27-2015, 09:15 AM
 
756 posts, read 424,997 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Because "your" scientists haven't been able to prove their work. They stick to blogs instead of journals because their work can't withstand scrutiny.

As ceist pointed out, every major scientific association has agreed that man's actions are contributing to climate change.

Wrong.
Earlier in this thread, Ceist maligned a bunch of scientists for the sole reason that they had "no background in climate sciences" , then told someone else that we should only regard published, peer reviewed science. Then Ceist goes and quotes a Public Relations statement from a society of physicists to make a pro AGW claim!

So which is it, are we dealing with only climate scientists and peer reviewed science reports or aren't we?
The double standards and hypocrisy in these discussions is really annoying.
 
Old 11-27-2015, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,749,540 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
If every climate scientist and liberal politician in the world knowingly working together to perpetuate a fear campaign based on secretly invented information isn't a conspiracy, I don't know what is.
.
Yes, you are correct. But the "If" in your post is the killer. Nobody said anything like your post so it's a silly conclusion.

Keep trying.
 
Old 11-27-2015, 01:30 PM
 
4,873 posts, read 3,603,930 times
Reputation: 3881
Quote:
Originally Posted by getitgotitgood View Post
Wrong.
Earlier in this thread, Ceist maligned a bunch of scientists for the sole reason that they had "no background in climate sciences" , then told someone else that we should only regard published, peer reviewed science. Then Ceist goes and quotes a Public Relations statement from a society of physicists to make a pro AGW claim!

So which is it, are we dealing with only climate scientists and peer reviewed science reports or aren't we?
The double standards and hypocrisy in these discussions is really annoying.
Environmental advocates provide 99 climate science papers proving that global warming is happening, and one letter from a physicist club affirming AGW, so that means pro AGWers are hypocrites for mentioning that non-climate scientists believe in science? How does that invalidate the published, peer reviewed science and evidence for global warming?
 
Old 11-27-2015, 01:32 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,121,492 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by getitgotitgood View Post
Wrong.
Earlier in this thread, Ceist maligned a bunch of scientists for the sole reason that they had "no background in climate sciences" , then told someone else that we should only regard published, peer reviewed science. Then Ceist goes and quotes a Public Relations statement from a society of physicists to make a pro AGW claim!

So which is it, are we dealing with only climate scientists and peer reviewed science reports or aren't we?
The double standards and hypocrisy in these discussions is really annoying.
Well let's start over. Point me to these academic journals that these scientists posted their findings.
 
Old 11-27-2015, 02:02 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,121,492 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
but the FACT is man has extremely little to due with any climate change...99% of the scientists say that mans part is less than 5%

actually 99% of the scientists and 99% of people understand that climate change always happens,,and the earth has warmed and cooled many,many,many, many times...all naturally


climate change is not a hoax or a myth.....but..."man-made" climate change is a hoax

most rational people understand that climate change always happens,,and the earth has warmed and cooled many,many,many, many times...all naturally

1. science shows the climate changes naturally

2. science shows that climate change is natural with co2, methane, water vapor, sun cycles, rotation of the earth, earths core activity, and weather patterns all having play in it

3. science shows that the earth has warmed and cooled many, many times, with the cycles be for the most part regular....but never EXACTLY the same

4. science shows that the co2 has been much, much higher...even in cooler times

5. science (and botany ) shows that plants grow much better in higher co2....1200ppm is optimum

6. science shows that a warmer climate is not a desert climate, but a tropical wetter climate...

7. science shows that warming will be better for humans, as we will have longer growing seasons, with less need for irrigation

8 science (and botany) shows that if co2 goes below 200ppm plants stop growing

9. science shows that humans may have a SMALL part, in climate change (less than 10%)...therefore making the fascist mantra of ''man-made/man-caused"" a LIE

10. common sense shows that a carbon tax, will NOT reduce anyones carbon footprint, but will make the fascist liberal rich, richer


11. SCIENCE says that the climate changes NATURALLY....why do the big ego liberals think that man HAS TO BE the cause....especially when NOT ONE SCIENTIST has proven it to be man made/man caused


12. everyone knows (and its scientifically proven) that climate has changed many, many times

13.. and yet NOT ONE scientist has proven MANMADE global warming...science does show.. the globe evolves. The global environment changes..periodically...there have been WARMER TIMES..there have been cooler times..there have been times when C02 was MUCH, MUCH higher


14. guess what our co2 levels are currently around 380-390ppm.... co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal


15. science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER... .guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for most plants is....900-1500 ppm.......


15a. Science shows plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration, as they tend to display lower stomatal conductance.

15b. Science shows the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area - or water-use efficiency - should increase dramatically as the air's CO2 content rises.

15c. Scinece and the study of science shows In the study of Serraj et al. (1999), soybeans grown at 700 ppm CO2 displayed 10 to 25% reductions in total water loss while simultaneously exhibiting increases in dry weight of as much as 33%. So, elevated CO2 significantly increased the water-use efficiencies of the studied plants.

15d. science shows, that the typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2.

15e. Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. (this is why companys and governments SELL CO2 generators for greenhouses)


15f. science shows it is clear that as the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, nearly all of earth's agricultural species will respond favorably by exhibiting increases in water-use efficiency... which means, one can expect global agricultural productivity to rise in tandem with future increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration.

so more co2 is actually GREENER...its not theory, its scientific fact

16. science shows that humans use oxygen and expel (exhale) co2

17. science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expels o2

18. science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush fertile land, not covered in ice

19. science shows us that Greenland was once a green lush fertile land, not covered with ice, in fact tropical like

20.. science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of glaciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)


and finally ....common sense states that as the earths population expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exhaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it


so endeth the lesson

the biggest question is why do the fascist brown shirt liberals deny science, and the fact , that the truth is it is a natural occurance , and that NOTHING WE DO will change or speedup, or slow, or stop the natural climate change
How much arsenic or cyanide relative to an average human does it take to a kill a person?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:35 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top