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 Yesterday, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Seattle
1,110 posts, read 237,504 times
Reputation: 1208

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobo7396 View Post
I thought Al Gore said cities would be flooding by now, yet it hasn't happened.

I was a believer a few years back, but now I think it's just a lot of fear mongering.
From what I saw, Al Gore's statement was regarding what would happen if Greenland's glacial cap melted completely. It wasn't false as such; a complete melt of Greenland's ice cap would raise sea levels by around 20+ feet.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-...ience_products

That's just basic math. Add to that the fact that Greenland is melting at a record rate: 11 billion tons of ice melted in one just day this summer.

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC

What's not clear yet is how long it will take to melt completely. The rate is accelerating, making prediction more difficult. One can hope that this summer's temperature spike in Europe was just a one-time thing. But it seems like high temperature records are getting broken every year these days.

Back of the envelope math: 1 cu. m. of water equals 1 metric ton. The Mississippi discharges 16,792 cu. m. per second, on average. 11 billion metric tons = 7.6 days of Mississippi flow. Did I get that right?

Last edited by rjshae; Yesterday at 08:18 PM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 07:53 PM
 
3,187 posts, read 914,848 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555 View Post
Anyone can add text to an image, and your assertion that it would provoke a lawsuit is comical, and doesn’t remotely distract from your actions.
you're becoming way too obvious....you can't answer the question....are the graphs and charts right or not?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:54 PM
 
3,187 posts, read 914,848 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
I accused you of lying? When?
San's I'm sorry...apologize...got the two names mixed up..no, you didn't
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:55 PM
 
Location: AZ
2,142 posts, read 451,373 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
you're becoming way too obvious....you can't answer the question....are the graphs and charts right or not?
The graph you stole from “wattsupwiththat” and tried to misrepresent is a fabrication.

Like I’ve been repeatedly stating, you need to ask your handlers for more believable information (the above projection was a nice touch).

Furthermore, you misrepresented information in post #6 and #10 by using graphs with different units, and then made false conclusions based upon that misrepresentation.

Next?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:04 PM
 
3,187 posts, read 914,848 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555 View Post
The graph you stole from “wattsupwiththat” and tried to misrepresent is a fabrication.

Like I’ve been repeatedly stating, you need to ask your handlers for more believable information.

Furthermore, you misrepresented information in post #6 and #10 by using graphs with different units, and then made false conclusions based upon that misrepresentation.

Next?
I posted several graphs...all showing exactly the same thing...even from Wiki

...are the graphs right or not?

Different units is a strawman and has no bearing at all....was more CO2 put into the air exponentially...absolutely it was...and all the different "units" you call them...show the same thing

...You absolutely will not admit the graphs I posted are correct and accurate

even Wiki says I'm right > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ederations.png


..yeah, I know Wiki....but anyway
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:07 PM
 
3,187 posts, read 914,848 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555 View Post
(the above projection was a nice touch).
well...then post something that says China's real emissions have not gone up...and the USA's real emissions have not gone down

You got time...I'm off for now
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:11 PM
 
Location: AZ
2,142 posts, read 451,373 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
I posted several graphs...all showing exactly the same thing...even from Wiki

...are the graphs right or not?

Different units is a strawman and has no bearing at all....was more CO2 put into the air exponentially...absolutely it was...and all the different "units" you call them...show the same thing

...You absolutely will not admit the graphs I posted are correct and accurate

even Wiki says I'm right > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ederations.png


..yeah, I know Wiki....but anyway
The graph I was originally responding to, and the graphs which you had previously posted in this thread are at best a misrepresentation, if not a blatant lie.
Trying to make up for this after the fact has no bearing on what you’ve posted previously and weakly attempted to pass of as the truth.

So no, what I was responding to were not “correct and accurate”. AND JFC, DIFFERENT UNITS IS NOT A STRAWMAN. Do you even know what a strawman is? (Obviously not, or you’re just trolling)

Do you even know what units are, and why you can’t compare two measurements without conversion? (Obviously not).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:14 PM
 
Location: AZ
2,142 posts, read 451,373 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
well...then post something that says China's real emissions have not gone up...and the USA's real emissions have not gone down



You got time...I'm off for now
Deflect much?

And that is relevant (to begin with) to this thread....how?

Inquiring minds would like to know.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,813 posts, read 9,920,378 times
Reputation: 9941
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma View Post
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? « RealClimate

It's pretty well documented how much fossil fuels we burn. And the laws of chemistry are irrefutable - burning them makes CO2. There is also irrefutable proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Actually, no, there is no irrefutable proof that a "greenhouse effect" is in operation, raising temperatures.

Can they explain why an atmosphere makes the planet cooler than zero atmosphere?

Consider that outside the atmosphere, the sun's energy is 1300 W / sq meter, whereas at sea level, inside that 'toasty' atmosphere it is only 1000 W/ sq meter. 30% was reflected back by the 'heat trapping' atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere keeps Earth cooler than nearby bodies in a vacuum.

- - - TEMPERATURE DATA - - -
● Earth max : (134.33°F)
● Space station max : (250°F)
● Lunar surface max : (242.33°F)

Zero atmosphere = higher maximum temperature
How does a “heat trapping”atmosphere stay colder?

More Facts in support - - -
Earth Albedo : 0.3
Moon Albedo : 0.11

Now, let me lead you to a KARBONITE SITE:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...orrelation.htm
... "A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth's surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them.”
WAIT - the Earth with ‘heat trapping’ atmosphere is 108° F cooler than the Moon without an atmosphere (242-134F). And they are claiming that trace gases are keeping Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer despite the atmosphere keeping us 116°F cooler than the Space Station right outside of Earth’s atmosphere (250-134F).

Too confusing?
=> Zero atmosphere = 250 F (space station)
=> Atmosphere w/ CO2 = 134F (Earth surface)
. . . .but the Karbonites are claiming. . . .
=> Atmosphere w/o CO2 = 80F (134 - 54) [Ice age?]

HOAX, FOLKS


P.S. - so called "greenhouse gases" have higher emissivity levels that cool the planet even more.

Of course, you will be cast from the Church of the Warming Planet for such heresies, but science is not welcome there.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,965 posts, read 31,908,317 times
Reputation: 12684
jetgraphics

Science IS welcome here....Too bad there is none in your post that explains why the moon's temperatures are so extreme, but Earths are not....Here is a bit of edumacation for you....

The moon lacks an atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere traps the heat of sunlight. The sunlight warms the ground, which then releases this solar energy as infrared radiation, but much of that radiation cannot escape through the atmosphere.

https://education.seattlepi.com/caus...moon-4320.html
Quick reply to this message
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.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top