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.
When one makes a hypothesis, it is incumbent upon them to refute the null hypothesis. If that cannot be done, the hypothesis is discarded.
Given that the null hypothesis for climate change has been rejected it now falls to those who would wish to deny the evidence for global warming to present their counterarguments. The burden of proof is on them. The prior alternative hypothesis becomes the next default null hypothesis. I suggest you get to work.
Global warming has caused many of the disruptions and changes in the earth's weather patterns, that have driven unusually cold air down into some regions. A warmer atmosphere, is a more active one and it brings previously unknown weather extremes of both hot and cold, into more areas. As much of the Eastern part of the U. S. is experiencing record cold, places like Melbourne, Australia have had temperatures of 120 degrees F.
Where do you get this BS from? I just checked the records. The highest temperature recorded in Melbourne is 115.5 degrees F. This summer there has been some days with 109 degrees F. which is not unusual at all. Some days the temperature is in the 70's then it jumps to over 100, that's just how it is in Australia. Quit giving uninformed propaganda.
The eastern part of the U.S. (actually the Midwest but apparently some people think Chicago is in the eastern part of the U.S.) has approached but actually not shattered most records. The record low of -27°F for Chicago was on January 20, 1985, when Reagan's second inauguration was held indoors. Many of the so-called climate scientists make things up out of whole cloth, not expecting to be challenged. The "yearly climate averages" showing each year warmer than the last are highly suspect.
"The State of the Climate report says that the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the 2015-2018 making up the top four."
"It is worth repeating once again that we are the first generation to fully understand climate change and the last generation to be able to do something about it,"
" If global temperatures rise by 2 degrees C, then half the glaciers would be gone by 2100.
Even if the world takes dramatic action and limits warming to 1.5C by the end of the century, 36% of the glaciers will have disappeared."
"The glaciers feed ten of the world's most important river systems, including the Ganges, Indus, Yellow, Mekong and Irrawaddy, and directly or indirectly supply billions of people with food, energy, clean air and incomes."
" If global temperatures rise by 2 degrees C, then half the glaciers would be gone by 2100.
Even if the world takes dramatic action and limits warming to 1.5C by the end of the century, 36% of the glaciers will have disappeared."
"The glaciers feed ten of the world's most important river systems, including the Ganges, Indus, Yellow, Mekong and Irrawaddy, and directly or indirectly supply billions of people with food, energy, clean air and incomes."
You don't fix something by making it something people will be able to hedge their bets on Wall Street on.
Before Hawkeye proves you wrong, here's a quick crib sheet on everything you don't understand on this topic.
LOL you sure wasted time posting about Photosynthesis as it does not prove me wrong in pointing out his ignorant statement.
Just becasue CO2 contains Carbon and Oxygen, this does not make it a building block of life. CO2 has specific properties that have nothing to do with the basic building blocks of life.
Laymen are funny in how they think they understand basic science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
CO2 is not a "dirty emission"- it is a building block of life that is as essential to life on our planet as O2 or water.
Again the building blocks of life do not involve CO2. CO2 is a molecule not an element.
You won't find any credible source that will state that CO2 is a building block of life. That's about the most absurd thing I have read in this forum as of yet.
LOL you sure wasted time posting about Photosynthesis as it does not prove me wrong in pointing out his ignorant statement.
Just becasue CO2 contains Carbon and Oxygen, this does not make it a building block of life. CO2 has specific properties that have nothing to do with the basic building blocks of life.
Laymen are funny in how they think they understand basic science.
Again the building blocks of life do not involve CO2. CO2 is a molecule not an element.
You won't find any credible source that will state that CO2 is a building block of life. That's about the most absurd thing I have read in this forum as of yet.
Where do you suppose the carbon in the atmosphere goes when absorbed by plants? And what do humans and animal eat? That’s right- plants!
Now are plants made of carbon or silicon? No- rocks and sand are made of silicon. Plants are made of carbon based compounds.
We, as humans, are organic, carbon based beings. Everything in our bodies are made up of carbon based compounds. I guess if you don’t know that, your scope of science is below that of most elementary school kids,so it will be a bit difficult to continue until you understand that.
What did you think organic compounds were made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice? Those are also made of carbon.
The key is something you don't seem to know...Carbon and carbon dioxide are not the same...Carbon is an element and CO2 is a compound.....As a scientist you should have known that... It is excess CO2 messing up the climate, not carbon.
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.