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.
Brace yourself. You are about to be deluged with climate deniers. Low information people who wouldn't be able to tell you what a molecule is are going to chime in with their "expertise" as to why the whole scientific community around the world is wrong and they are right.
I doubt many of the climate deniers even have a high school education, but trust them, because they know all about this.
By the time we get these cretins out of office there won't be anything left to save.
actually most will tell you that climate change is real...and natural
and the biggest fact that the fascist liberals wont even address...there is NOTHING man can do to stop the natural change (cycle) of the environment... nope the fascist liberals will say we can fix this with a new tax... the fascist liberals love taxes and new taxes on the serfs
Fact, leaving capital control in the hands of private power have left our global well being on the precipice of destruction.
The natural world, fresh water, all formulated by organic beings in the pursuit of mutual aid form the circle of life. Bees pollinate plants while in turn plants offer food and vegetation to the living world. Algae is consumed by fish who offer natural and voluntary regulation for natural living.
Read Mutual Aid:A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin to understand that from any colonies, to bee hives, to white tail birds, to plant life, to wolf packs, to human settlements, communal help is what has brought us to success, not artificial power and economic control.
Today capitalism is forcing authoritarian dictations on private power who act on their own needs, wasting the land for their own profit and leading to climate destruction.
We must save this world and finally free ourselves to form a self sustaining society we’re nature and man live in harmony, not by the invisible control of business wealth.
There is no denying what is happening, we must act now.
Nope!
A scam created by Maurice Strong, head of the World Conservative Bank, to rob the USA of it's wealth.
Nothing else.
Follow the money.
And learn to think for yourself.
The earth is still healing itself from the ICEAGE.
actually most will tell you that climate change is real...and natural
and the biggest fact that the fascist liberals wont even address...there is NOTHING man can do to stop the natural change (cycle) of the environment... nope the fascist liberals will say we can fix this with a new tax... the fascist liberals love taxes and new taxes on the serfs
If it was natural, we would be heading into an ice age.
While your right, natural climate change happens in a very long time span. But it isn't natural this time..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Its not normal historically to have a temperature change this rapid in a short period of time unless there is some catastrophic event. Changes in the earths tilt cover millions of years, a change of 1-2 Deg C in 100 years is rapid and coincides with our increase in fossil fuel use.
No, it doesn't.
Read and weep:
One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
What validation would you accept? You clearly dismiss the vast majority of scientific validation from around the globe. As if there is any validation that would convince the science deniers of anything. Nothing can get past that steadfast, non-factual blockhead thinking.
The so-called scientists cherry-pick their data and ignore what doesn't conform to their skewed beliefs.
These are good examples:
That's CO2 and temperature data from 112,000 years ago to 130,000 years ago, and then 130,000 years ago to 150,000 years ago.
As everyone can plainly see, there's no relationship between CO2 and temperature. Whatever relationship exists is one of a lagging indicator.
You can find that data on the NOAA/NCDC web-site for EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800,000 year CO2-Temp Data and graph it yourself if you do doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandyCo
I think climate change is a real threat to human life on this planet. I also think nothing will be done about it, or too little too late will be attempted, and things will get very bad.
I don't put this solely at the feet of the Republicans. We're talking about a U.S. government that knew about the coming shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare for at least the last 30 years and has done nothing to address these problems, no matter who was in power. So don't tell me there's going to be a sudden rush to really deal with climate change. There will be a lot of talking and debate - and that's it.
If you never burned an ounce of fossil fuels, the average global temperatures will still increase no matter what.
The current average global temperature is generally reported as 58.4°F.
There's data covering the 8 previous Inter-Glacial Periods, and in 7 out of 8, the average global temperatures increased a minimum of 7.8°F to a maximum of 15.3°F.
The last Inter-Glacial Period had average global temperatures 15.3°F warmer than present, which would mean 58.4°F + 15.3°F = 73.7°F.
The one Inter-Glacial Period can be validly dismissed as a statistical outlier, since it ended abruptly after only 8,000 years, for reasons scientists cannot explain.
Inter-Glacial Periods are typically 12,000 to 26,000 years in duration.
So, no matter what you did or didn't do, the end result is always the same.
A 1 Deg C increase since 1880 is very significant, its actually more if you use 1910 as the baseline, why is that unprecedented. Why would the rise in the early 1900's be dismissed.
Normal heating and warming cycles take millions of years due to changes in the earths tilt, other than the increase of greenhouse gases there is no other external force. Heat trapping gases cause more warming and more water vapor, both are increasing.
Go look at the temperature record, none of the glaciations or interglacials were from cooling or heating over millions of years. In most cases, you see see a very sharp increase or decline of 10+ degrees C, in only thousands or possibly even hundreds of years.
I don't have access to a high-resolution graph to find the specifics. And it depends on how the graph plots its points.
Take this picture for instance, which is data from the GISP2. If you look at the Minoan Warm period, you can see about a 2'C increase in a few hundred years, and then slightly more than 2'C decrease in the next 200 years.
In that picture, you'll also see that the average line is in green. Most of the time when a scientist is plotting points for his graph, he takes averages over a set period of time and plots only those points.
If you were to look at that graph and only look at the green line, you would think that it took about 6,500 years for the temperature to slowly decline by 2'C. But that isn't what happened at all.
And this is the problem when you look at a graph of the climate from hundreds of thousands of years ago. For practical reasons, the points are graphed on probably a hundred year or a thousand year basis, which makes the increase or decrease appear much more smooth and far less erratic than it really was.
As you pointed-out, 1880 was warmer than 1900, so depending on where you start and end, the average increase or decrease can look quite different. The increase from 1900 to 1945 was incredibly sharp, but if you averaged from 1900-1980, it would be much less sharp. And if you averaged from 1880 to 1980, it would seem even less sharp.
If the current increase in temperature continues at the current rate, unabated for another 100 years, it would be quite unusual, although not unprecedented. But it isn't like the predictions have been very good over the last several decades. They have pretty much all vastly overestimated the amount of warming that would occur. Which is why people began to call these people "global warming alarmists".
Part of the problem is that people put too much faith in CO2 as the primary catalyst of climate. As you might be aware, there is an "800-year lag" between CO2 levels and temperature. Basically, CO2 levels didn't rise and then temperature rose. Rather, temperature rose and then CO2 levels rose. So CO2 as the primary driver of climate is mostly false.
With that said, I don't intend to appear like a climate-change denier, or the believer that CO2 has no effects on climate. I believe that it does. And honestly, I hate cars with a passion. I would rather us ride around on horses, or ride bicycles, or walk. I'm not on the side of the capitalists. And I hate the oil companies probably more than you.
But, I still place a high value on the truth. And I get triggers when I see bull****. Especially when I feel like the people making these claims have ulterior motives.
As I constantly tell my friends, I'm not as much interested in what you believe, as I am why you believe it.
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
- - - 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?
And if heat was being 'trapped,' why hasn't the maximum temperature gone up to a new record level?
Is the “Greenhouse effect” like a refrigerator “trapping heat”?
There is no "heating up" or trapping of heat by the atmosphere when it is COOLING the planet. And since there is no conduction nor convection of heat in a vacuum, that leaves RADIATION. The atmosphere is radiating / reflecting back energy, that COOLS the planet.
Facts in support - - -
Earth Albedo : 0.3
Moon Albedo : 0.11
Coincidentally, the greenhouse gases have a higher emissivity that means they COOL the planet even more. And the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, which has a far greater effect than trace gases like CO2 or methane.. . .
[Is that a NEKKID EMPEROR over there?]
Remember, even the experts admit that we can do nothing to STOP change, but merely slow it down. Which begs the question, how does sequestering CO2 prevent the alleged disasters that have yet to manifest, when water vapor is the major factor?
Better not think about that. Move along, nothing to see here, do not look behind the curtain, little girl. We are the great and powerful ... Church of the Warming Planet.
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
- - - 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?
And if heat was being 'trapped,' why hasn't the maximum temperature gone up to a new record level?
Is the “Greenhouse effect” like a refrigerator “trapping heat”?
There is no "heating up" or trapping of heat by the atmosphere when it is COOLING the planet. And since there is no conduction nor convection of heat in a vacuum, that leaves RADIATION. The atmosphere is radiating / reflecting back energy, that COOLS the planet.
Facts in support - - -
Earth Albedo : 0.3
Moon Albedo : 0.11
Coincidentally, the greenhouse gases have a higher emissivity that means they COOL the planet even more. And the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, which has a far greater effect than trace gases like CO2 or methane.. . .
[Is that a NEKKID EMPEROR over there?]
Remember, even the experts admit that we can do nothing to STOP change, but merely slow it down. Which begs the question, how does sequestering CO2 prevent the alleged disasters that have yet to manifest, when water vapor is the major factor?
Better not think about that. Move along, nothing to see here, do not look behind the curtain, little girl. We are the great and powerful ... Church of the Warming Planet.
Indeed, they worship the Gospel of Computer Models, and GIGO they pray, Inshalgore.
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.
