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.
Politics created a corrupt science. It used to be that science would discover something & politicians would try to act on it. In this case billionaires & politicians came up with an agenda & then funded scientists to create science to support their agenda. This " climate science" is to actual science, as professional wrestling is to actual wrestling.
Right wingers declare it fraudulent because it contradicts the talking points of Republican scum. When challenged to provide evidence of this fraud, they either run like curs or whine and cry about liberals. No facts anywhere support the right's claims of fraud. That's why Republican liars such as James Inhofe have to lie and pretend creationist cue-card readers are climatologists; right-wing claims are not supported by facts.
Right wingers declare it fraudulent because it contradicts the talking points of Republican scum.
I'm not a Republican.
I started fleeing the Republican Party, after Bush-The-Secret-Agent-Man sent me to Honduras and Panama and Iraq to clean up the mess he made when he was playing Secret-Agent-Man.
Really, Bob Dole? Please. As much as I respect Dole, let's face it, he'd have been the best vice-president this federation had ever seen.
And Bush-The-Drunkard, whose piloting skills are only slightly better than Dean Martin, Jr?
No thanks.
So, I should go Democrat? Oh, yeah, sure Blow Job Bill the Adulterer who illegally overthrew governments to seize control of their oil and who illegally bought weapons and munitions and Iran to arm the Bosnians and Kosvoars in his illegal war to seize natural resources is Serbia is just a fine upstanding role-model.
The Gorebot? Are you kidding? Millard Fillmore's ice-box would have done a better job.
And Obama "My parents marched at Selma."
That should have been everyone's first clue he was pathological liar.
I'll go 3rd Party, thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
When challenged to provide evidence of this fraud, they either run like curs or whine and cry about liberals.
And what do you all do when challenged?
You all clench your fists, close your eyes and start chanting, "It rubs the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose" over and over.
In the 19-freaking-50's, Crick and Watson built a model to simulate atmospheric and oceanic conditions on Earth 3 Billion years ago.
What do you got?
Nothing, except the AGW fight-song: "It rubs the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
; right-wing claims are not supported by facts.
Fact: The Earth cycles through climate changes: Pre-Glacial Period, Glacial Period, Post-Glacial Period and Inter-Glacial Period
Fact: The average global temperature for the eight prior Inter-Glacial Periods is warmer than present.
Fact: The average global temperature for the previous Inter-Glacial Period 120,000 years ago was more than 10°F warmer than present.
Now that you have been challenged, you will run away screaming "Denier! and chanting the AGW fight-song.Does science frighten you?Funny how my record of predictions is better than the IPCCs....
That the levels of CO2 required to be "harmful" to humans or the Earth, would have to be so high that it put stresses on plants(> 3000 PPM). That the odds of humans being able to drive CO2 anywhere close to 3,000 PPM seems unreasonable(there isn't even enough oil to burn). The CO2 ppm that is often quoted as the current CO2 PPM level, is the CO2 peak in around April(right before everything starts growing after dying out in winter). But the average CO2 is actually much lower.
When we make comparisons of CO2 PPM to the past, I don't know if it is proper to use the peak or the average?
That a warming Earth is actually a more hospitable Earth. With more regions for growing food, more rain for growing food, and more "equal" heating of the Earth(upper latitudes heat a lot more than lower latitudes).
That the heating of the Earth, regardless of CO2 or any other factors, has a sort of "ceiling". Which seems to be around ~22 degrees Celsius global average temperatures(about 72 degrees Fahrenheit). The current average temperature is about 14.6 degrees Celsius(58.3 degrees Fahrenheit).
This ~14 degree temperature increase sounds bad when we imagine it simply being 14 degrees warmer every day(IE, if the current all-time high in Oklahoma City is 113 degrees, we think it'll then be 127 degrees). But that isn't what would actually happen.
In reality, CO2 as many have noted, acts more like a "blanket" that helps to keep temperatures steady.
A "desert" has huge temperature swings from day to night. Nighttime temperature in a humid area are usually only about 10 degrees cooler than the daytime temperatures. And when its actually raining, this difference is even smaller. This is because the water vapor works similarly to CO2.
Effectively, when CO2 levels rise, the average temperature will be higher, but the difference in temperature will be smaller. It isn't that the daytime temperatures are going to get much higher. Its just that the nighttime temperatures won't be as low.
And even then, the heat isn't going to be evenly dispersed. The high latitudes will see much more heating until they are more "equal" in temperature to areas closer to the equator. The areas around the equator shouldn't see much change at all in temperatures(especially already humid areas).
The only bad part of a changing climate in my view, is sea-level rise. Though, I'm somewhat of a Romantic when it comes to sea-level rise. Every time I look at the map, it is more exciting to me than scary.
Especially for Central and South America.
Would we even need the Panama Canal?
The sad part is, at current rates of sea-level rise. It would take 17,000-20,000 years for "all the ice to melt". Even in the most doomsday predictions, it would take thousands of years.
The question then becomes, is there anything to be concerned about over the next 50 to 100 years? From what I can tell the answer is a resounding "No".
In fact, I find the whole discussion on climate change to be more boring than anything. The only thing exciting about climate-change, is getting to argue with the doomsdayers who honestly think if we don't do anything by 2050 or some other arbitrary and near-off date, that Earth will become uninhabitable.
I mean, at any time, we can spray sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere and plunge the Earth into an ice age.
But more importantly, if Yellowstone erupted, we would not only be plunged into an ice age. But most of North-America would be wiped out or covered in volcanic ash/dust.
I just never understand people's infatuation with global-warming.
I just never understand people's infatuation with global-warming.
They get giddy over the prospect of increasing government power and control over the people. AGW supports their Big Government agenda and, conveniently, enriches their wealthy buddies. It is no longer about the science.
Stupid options because nobody is predicting such elevated CO2 levels....
Rising temperatures are mainly caused by burning fossil fuels, and the feedback effects of a warming planet....We have already reached a level that is causing problems.
So you want to forget that in the age of the dinosaur the global temps were considerably warmer than they are now and during the ice ages considerably cooler. Without any input by mankind.
Leads one to think that at least some of mankind are extreme egotists.
I chose "not happening" because there is no way to know the cycles of the planet and this ridiculous, theory of CO2 in the air affecting the temps of this planet are just crazy.
Their own data proves their theories false. CO2 levels many times higher than today in prehistoric times, during ice ages! Right in the ice core samples!
Some just will not consider (or admit to) anything that does not support their own agenda. It just must be false because they know the truth!
A few comprehensive global weather computer models exist:
ECMF
GFS
UKMET
Name 3 for global climate.
Are you confusing climate with weather? You do know that they are not the same thing, right?
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.
