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.
The OP certainly thinks AGW is real enough, and scary enough, to re-post the most extreme drivel ever penned on the subject. Cow farts are scary too!
He certainly brought out the logic crowd, on both sides, which is probably a shocking thing. It's fairly rare that people on both sides come together to call BS on such a thing.
Care to disprove that the Earth is not absorbing 250 trillion Joules per second of heat due to AGW?
I didn't think so. But you're one of the good guys, of course.
Gawd Bless Amurrica, home of "I got mine, let the rest rot."
You ask a lot, considering that your source offers NO peer reviewed studies indicating what that left wing AGW propaganda site Skeptical Science (the authors of this 4hiroshimas site) is all about.
Make up some number then pass it off as truth. Then let AGW bots spread the lie far and wide.
Easy answer, eh? Just ignore any calculations and carry on with your "we are above the laws of nature because the Bible sez so" agenda.
Original source of the data; even half that amount of heat would be extreme. But staunch Republicans will dismiss all such data in the blink of an eye, being the pathological liars that they are.
I wonder what you think is causing Arctic ice and most of the world's glaciers to melt? Sorry, I know you don't care. The only things that concern you are your next paycheck and how much taxes you'll pay on it. The entire universe revolves around your tiny life.
I posted this mainly to demonstrate the lack of scientific integrity among the GOP (Greed Over Progress). You people think nature is nothing a welfare agency put here to keep you happy with a cheap tankful.
de·ni·al noun \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\
psychology : a condition in which someone will not admit that something sad, painful, etc., is true or real
The OP's link is hardly "proof" of anything other than that someone can create a website and make an assertion. It offers up no evidence though it sure looks like it is science.
Nice diversion. Try taking on this paper, which is their general source for the data; just one of many studies (in case you think ignoring it makes it go away).
You won't bother because you have no intellectual curiosity about the only planet that keeps you alive. I post here to go on record as fighting mindless denial and greed-driven evil. Expecting intelligent replies from people who still believe in Noah's Ark is a long shot. I knew how you'd reply long before you did. Your ilk is good for a few quick jabs that have no substance. The minute you're asked for evidence to back up your claims, you try to nitpick others' data with nothing original on your part. And you feel righteous about it. No morals.
People who don't care about the future of their only world are unfathomably small-minded. How does one get that way? So obsessed with money that nothing else matters?
It's like some fool being kept alive by an iron lung machine who could care less that it's being dismantled for quick cash. "Who cares? Let's just remove a few screws here and cut off some bits of tubing there..." When the machine finally loses enough parts to be functionally disabled, the idiot realizes what he's allowed but it's too late.
Nice diversion. Try taking on this paper, which is their general source for the data; just one of many studies (in case you think ignoring it makes it go away).
You won't bother because you have no intellectual curiosity about the only planet that keeps you alive. I post here to go on record as fighting evil-based denial. Expecting intelligent replies from people who still believe in Noah's Ark is a long shot.
People who don't care about the future of their only world are unfathomably small-minded. How does one get that way? So obsessed with money that nothing else matters? It's like someone being kept alive by an iron lung machine who could care less that it's being dismantled for quick cash. When the machine loses enough parts to be functionally disabled, the idiot finally realizes what he's done but it's too late.
And yet you completely ignored the fact that humans here on planet Earth produce 20 - 30 times that amount of heat.
So, how do you feel about 20 AGWs occurring here on planet Earth in the same time frame as your 1 AGW? Do you give a crap that your 1 AGW is only 3 - 5% of the total heat being added to the planet?
And yet you completely ignored the fact that humans here on planet Earth produce 20 - 30 times that amount of heat.
So, how do you feel about 20 AGWs occurring here on planet Earth in the same time frame as your 1 AGW? Do you give a crap that your 1 AGW is only 3 - 5% of the total heat being added to the planet?
Do you live in a cave? Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.
I think the OP has to specify the magnitude of the problem in terms us Republicans can truly understand and relate to: Please reword the quantity of jules according to how many Sharper Image Hand Warmers the Earth absorbs.
Do you live in a cave? Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.
What part of 7.1 billion people on planet Earth is hard for you to grasp?
What part of a single human sitting still in a movie theater gives off 330 btu (348 kJ) heat confuses you?
What part of a single human doing heavy activity gives off 1800 btu (1899 kJ) confounds you?
What part of 2.5 billion people on planet Earth in the 50's perplexes you?
Do you know how to do math? Why don't you do the math for everyone here and then compare it to the OP worries that a measles 250 trillion joules has been added to planet Earth because of AGW?
Then when you do figure that all out why don't you tell everyone how you plan to solve all of that.
Knutti and Huber found that greenhouse gases contributed 0.6–1.1 degrees C to
the warming observed since the mid-twentieth century, with the most
statistically likely value being a contribution of about 0.85 degree C. Around half of that contribution from greenhouse gases—0.45 degree C—was
offset by the cooling effects of aerosols. These directly influence
Earth's climate by scattering light; they also have indirect climate effects
through their interactions with clouds.
I am doing my part by doubling my usage of aerosols. If everyone currently using aerosols would do the same we would end global warming.
This site popularizes the calculation that man-made emissions and loss of forest cover are adding a net gain of 250 trillion Joules per second of heat energy to the oceans and atmosphere, which dispels the notion that CO2 is "just a trace gas" (a claim purely based on casual assumptions; net effect, not volume, is what matters with any substance).
Enduring four 6.0 Richter scale earthquakes per second
Being struck by 500,000 lightning bolts per second
Exploding more than eight Big Ben towers, with every inch packed full of dynamite, per second
About 90% of that heat is being stored in the oceans, which partly accounts for the so-called pause in surface warming, which never was much of a pause (cherry-picked 1998 El Nino spike used as graph starting point).
When you hear anti-conservation conservatives talk about "global cooling for the past 16 years," that's the flawed source of their claim.
If someone is really hoping to debunk the CO2/heat connection, you'd think they'd go after those figures, right? That's a lot of energy to just sweep under the rug and cry "hoax" about. Has anyone disproved the 250 trillion Joules per second figure?
If this gets lengthy replies, I ask that the usual copying & pasting of echo-chamber rhetoric be replaced with actual proof that "250 trillion Joules per second" is wrong, and if so, by what significant amount. Even half of that heat buildup would be a big deal. Don't nitpick a few million Joules, etc.
Stay on topic and address the main question.
The owners of the sight admit to being very biased and have pre-concieved opinions and are out to dis-prove any one who disagrees with them.
"Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism.
This site popularizes the calculation that man-made emissions and loss of forest cover are adding a net gain of 250 trillion Joules per second of heat energy to the oceans and atmosphere, which dispels the notion that CO2 is "just a trace gas" (a claim purely based on casual assumptions; net effect, not volume, is what matters with any substance)....
This is merely a fantastic claim which has no reference point to back it up. When you couple it with an opening statement deriding an entire political party, it stops becoming a fantastic claim and starts becoming political propaganda. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat and I find these idiot claims of global warming a bunch of alarmist nonsense for the most part.
Couple this silly fantasy with the East Anglia Climate Research scandal, the faked hockey stick graph that spawned this silly theory in the first place, the lack of climate data preceding 1830 and the utter inability of the Global Warming proponents to explain what caused the Medieval Warming Period or the Little Ice Age that followed it are the main reasons why I think Global Warming is simply a bunch of politically charged BS and far less an "inconvenient truth"
Speaking of inconvenient truths, it should be noted that the "Green Godfather" Al Gore has watched his personal fortune multiply over nine times since he started pushing this agenda on the American public and the world at large. This is the equivalent of former Halliburton Oil Chairman and CEO Dick Cheney using his position as Vice President of the United States to fake evidence of Iraqi WMDs in order to push a military agenda that resulted in America and Halliburton Oil taking control of Iraqi oil fields, all the while claiming the Iraqi War had nothing to do with oil.
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.
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.
