The 97% of "scientists" (quoted for effect) have been debunked. Keep on quoting them though. And keep on saying it's "science."
Hottest Spring On Record Globally 2014
- Thread starter PoloMalo43
- Start date
The 97% of "scientists" (quoted for effect) have been debunked. Keep on quoting them though. And keep on saying it's "science."
Deniers, all y'all are just damn deniers and yur goin' to hell....soon as it warms up.
View attachment 278
I still haven't had anyone explain to me why the earth getting warmer (even if it WAS true) is a bad thing.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 817
- Reaction score
- 45
- Points
- 28
Which, given the data in the graph, is an upward trend with fairly strong correlation. The 1998 is an outlier, but it's also an inflection point. Most of the data to the left of 1998 is below the baseline, and most of the data to the right is above the baseline. That is the statistical definition of a trend.
The more important point that should be raised is whether a 25-year-span is significant. If there are strong 5-year cycles, then yes. If there are 1,000-year cycles, then no. This same data is cherry-picked, ironically by both sides of the argument. AGW proponents hold this up as a clear demonstration that temperatures are steadily increasing over the last 25 years, and they're not wrong. AGW opponents point to the same data (as you did) and say that the increase is not significant (assuming it continues to rise for the foreseeable future). I look at it and think, in the 5-billion-year context of the planet's history, or the 10,000 or so years of increasing human civilization, does this mean anything, or on a larger scale, would this just be one dot on a bigger graph. As I've said before, we can create climate models, but we can't really perform experiments to validate those models, except in computers, and computer programs are subject to the shortcomings, biases, mistakes and limitations of the programmer's understanding of the physics. However well we think we understand it, I can guarantee you it isn't well enough.
I agree. Or more to the point, even if I didn't agree, I don't know, and haven't heard anyone say, what we would reasonably expect to do about it.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,486
- Reaction score
- 12,553
- Points
- 113
Check out PoloElfieSkeever's other thread where she points out what NASA wants to try to figure out.
Well it will warm so much that we will all freeze to death.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,994
- Reaction score
- 7,600
- Points
- 113
No worries!!! just buy more carbon offsets and all is well. amazing how money seems to fix everything for these socialist fucktards.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
Buy them from a company or organization over which you have a good deal fo control, too.
At least until a too much of that goes on to suit the True Believers.
We have deserts in America but we don't live in them.
Again, it is crucial to determine what effect man-made, industry-generated CO2 emissions will have on temperatures (if any). If the emissions cause 1.0 degree C increase over 100 years, then the steps we should consider to account for that increase are MASSIVELY different than if the increase is 3 degrees C, or 5 degrees C.
Further, sequence does not prove causation. That is why the "hockey stick" graphs were so important to the AGW alarmists. "Look how hot it is!!" they cried, and "Look at those CO2 levels!!!" they protested.
Uhh, not so much.
The AGW alarmists have, in fact, made a proposal: restricting CO2 levels to less than 400 ppm, a level that is lower than the current amount. That would require substantial reduction of coal burning, vehicle use, oil-generated power, and cement manufacturing. And because developing nations need coal and oil power and cement to build their infrastructure, the same guys lobby for multi-billion dollar payments by industrialized nations to developing nations (read, countries in Africa, Central America, South America) to finance their use of windmills and solar, since that stuff is far less productive and much more expensive.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
If you still don't understand after this I don't know what to tell you. These are peer reviewed studies from real scientists unlike the stuff posted on here by deniers that comes from the weatherman or the ambulance chaser's web site.
You can google the names and dates in parentheses to read the papers.
| Positives Agriculture | Negatives Agriculture |
|---|---|
| Improved agriculture in some high latitude regions (Mendelsohn 2006) | Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009) |
| Increased growing season in Greenland (Nyegaard 2007) | Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008) |
| Increased productivity of sour orange trees (Kimball 2007) | Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt (Westerling 2006) |
| Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing (Morgan 2007) | |
| Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007) | |
| Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008) | |
| Positives Health | Negatives Health |
|---|---|
Winter deaths will decline as temperatures warm (HPA 2007) | Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps (Medina-Ramon 2007) |
| Increased heat stress in humans and other mammals (Sherwood 2010) | |
| Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever (Epstein 1998) | |
| Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen (Rogers 2006) |
| Positives Arctic Melt | Negatives Arctic Melt |
|---|---|
| An ice-free Northwest Passage, providing a shipping shortcut between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Kerr 2002, Stroeve 2008) | Loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years (Amstrup 2007) |
| Less compacted ice, hazardous floes and more mobile icebergs posing increased risk to shipping (IICWG 2009) | |
| Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem (Smol 2007) | |
| Melting of Arctic lakes leading methane bubbling (Walter 2007) | |
| Leakage of methane from the East Siberian Shelf seabed sediments (Shakhova 2008) | |
| Escape of methane gas from the seabed along the West Spitsbergen continental margin (Westbrook 2009) |
| Positives Environment | Negatives Environment |
|---|---|
| Increased vegetation activity in high northern latitudes (Zhou 2001) | Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier (Saleska 2009) |
| Increase in chinstrap and gentoo penguins (Ducklow 2006) | Extinction of the European land leech (Kutschera 2007) |
| Increased plankton biomass in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre (arguably ENSO/PDO might be dominant influence) (Corno 2006) | Decrease in Adélie penguin numbers (Ducklow 2006) |
| Recent increase in forest growth (McMahon 2010) | Disruption to New Zealand aquatic species such as salmonids, stream invertebrates, fishes (Ryan 2007) |
| Bigger marmots (Ozgul 2010) | Oxygen poor ocean zones are growing (Stramma 2008, Shaffer 2009) |
| Increased Arctic tundra plant reproduction (Klady 2010) | Increased mortality rates of healthy trees in Western U.S. forest (Pennisi 2009) |
| More severe and extensive vegetation die-off due to warmer droughts (Breshears 2009) | |
| Increased pine tree mortality due to outbreaks of pine beetles (Kurz 2008, Bentz 2010) | |
| Increased risk of coral extinction from bleaching and disease driven by warming waters (Veron 2009, Carpenter 2008) | |
| Decline in lizard populations (Sinervo 2010) | |
| Decline in global phytoplankton (Boyce 2010) | |
| Decline in global net primary production - the amount of carbon absorbed by plants (Zhao 2010) |
| Pos. Ocean Acidification | Neg. Ocean Acidification |
|---|---|
| Note: this is not caused by warming temperatures but by the oceans absorbing more carbon dioxide (Dore 2009). Oceans uptake of carbon dioxide, moderates future global warming (Orr 2005) | Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems (Orr 2005, Fabry 2008, Kroeker 2010) |
| Inhibiting plankton development, disruption of carbon cycle (Turley 2005) | |
| Increased mortalities of sea urchins (Miles 2007) | |
| Threat to fish populations (Munday 2010) |
| Pos. Glacier Melt | Neg. Glacier Melt |
|---|---|
| None | Severe consequences for at least 60 million people dependent on ice melt for water supply (Barnett 2005, Immerzeel 2010) |
| Contribution to rising sea levels (Pfeffer 2008, Vermeer 2009) | |
| Pos. Economical | Neg. Economical |
|---|---|
Increased cod fishing leading to improved Greenland economy (Nyegaard 2007) | Economic damage to poorer, low latitude countries (Mendelsohn 2006) |
| Billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure (Larsen 2007) | |
| Reduced water supply in New Mexico (Hurd 2008) | |
| Increased risk of conflict (Zhang 2007) including increased risk of civil war in Africa (Burke 2009) | |
| Drop in primary productivity due to unprecedented warming at Lake Tanganyika (Tierney 2010) |
| Pos. Sea Level Rise | Neg. Sea Level Rise |
|---|---|
| None | Hundreds of millions displaced within this century (Dasgupta 2009) |
| Coastal erosion in Nigeria (Okude 2006) |
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
Why does growing antarctic sea ice disprove AGW? Elaborate please.
Get ready for your ride to swing by to get you.
Polo, if we know all that fun stuff is going to happen why spend half a Billion on a carbon satellite? Why not desalination plants in California? Why not a sea wall for the east coast? Once again doom and gloom and no proactive solutions. Just a rising bill and a hand out for more.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
Desalination is a temporary very expensive fix, why are you going to invest that much in what is essentially going to become a desert? Even though I say that at some point they will go to that solution, it's part of the cycle and we'll do things like that until the negative economic feedback overwhelms the system.
The southwest is done along with parts of the midwest. The reason I say that Is because it's what all the projections show and politically(thanks to republican fossil fuel ****** in congress) we are going to do practically nothing until it's too late and make those projections come true, by then there will be so much CO2 in the pipeline there will be no other choice but migration.
The southwest right now is like the guy on death row still doing push ups 6 months before his execution with his last appeal just about used up.
Don't let the slight temporary improvement from El Nino and the rainy 2014 winter/2015 spring fool you, we're concerned with trends.
Dead man walking.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
He's too dumb to get it or is playing dumb, he's asking about thermometers and inaccuracy of said thermometers after I posted 3 long posts explaining how and why data is homogenized to smooth out the bias, what does that tell you?
Then we have the paleontological data which if I pursue he'll just dismiss with some Lord Monckton chart or a James Taylor article written after a Heartland memo gets sent out..lol
Here is what it looks like with Monckton/Watts corruption and what the trend actually is.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,147
- Reaction score
- 144
- Points
- 63
Well you see, I go by what I see - not by what I am told. If there is more ice than last year then I think it is getting colder. Get it?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 817
- Reaction score
- 45
- Points
- 28
Beside the point. I'm not arguing that the warming is man-made. I'm simply saying that the graph shows a clear warming trend. You can argue with me all you want, but you'll only look like a bigger and bigger fool, because I ALREADY AGREE WITH YOU. I'm simply pointing out that the graph you seem to think was a "knockout punch" to the AGW argument only serves to show that temperatures have, in fact, been increasing over the period shown in the graph.
Which is why I've said repeatedly that I've not seen any REASONABLE or MEANINGFUL proposals. There is nothing that, globally, everyone will agree to do to reduce these greenhouse gases. I've said it time and time again - no amount of carbon credits, electric cars, and solar/wind power plants is going to stop the perceived increase in any meaningful timeframe. It's not as if we can simply replace all fossil fuels with something else tomorrow. It would take decades (if not centuries) to completely replace the world's energy infrastructure with something "clean" and in the meantime no one is going to stop what they're already doing today. There is no solution.
I see no compelling scientific evidence of AGW, though I can't discount it completely, either. I simply believe that we don't have the ability to determine whether the climate is really changing alarmingly, or whether it's man-made, or if it's all just part of natural cycles. And since there is no practical solution even if the worst case proves to be true, what does it matter, really?
The southwest was a desert to begin with. Why not build a pipeline from the northwest down to cali and the southwest? If you think there is nothing to be done, why would we give any more money at all to this cause?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,994
- Reaction score
- 7,600
- Points
- 113
He's too dumb to get it or is playing dumb, he's asking about thermometers and inaccuracy of said thermometers after I posted 3 long posts explaining how and why data is homogenized to smooth out the bias, what does that tell you?
Then we have the paleontological data which if I pursue he'll just dismiss with some Lord Monckton chart or a James Taylor article written after a Heartland memo gets sent out..lol
Here is what it looks like with Monckton/Watts corruption and what the trend actually is.
Wow, let's spend billions on CO2 satellites for a half of a degree Celsius warming trend over the last 34 years.
Oh, and you can claim corruption due to the charts showing an average step trend all you want, but it's more accurate and detailed than an upward rocket trend line. Did you ever wonder why they used a blue line for the step average and a red line for the total average trend? But that doesn't fit your bullshit and debunked pseudoscience now does it?
If Bomma would build a proper border fence and repatriate all the Mexicans who are drinking all the water down there, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.
Extinction of the European land leech (Kutschera 2007)
Pretty dismal projection.....that's a lot of dead people.
Pretty dismal projection.....that's a lot of dead people.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Look you knuckle draggers, you don't get it. You probably won't even understand this climate scientist explaining how global warming is causing record Antarctic sea ice - http://talkingabouttheweather.wordp...ea-ice-hits-second-all-time-record-in-a-week/
See, warm water gets carried away from Antarctica, and then the cold water below rises. I don't really understand how that happens, when the reason given for the "pause" in global warming was that all that extra heat in the last 15 years found its way to the bottom of the ocean and is just waiting there.
Bunch of idiots.
See, warm water gets carried away from Antarctica, and then the cold water below rises. I don't really understand how that happens, when the reason given for the "pause" in global warming was that all that extra heat in the last 15 years found its way to the bottom of the ocean and is just waiting there.
Bunch of idiots.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
Cue Rush Limbaugh to tell you and the rest of the conservative inbreds that the whole water mixing thing is just something scientists made up recently, like the 'polar vortex'. Yeah just made it up when Al Gore gives the order.
Here's a new one just like the Polar Vortex.....1902 new. Ekman Transport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_transport
'Water, fire, air, and dirt. ******* Ekman transport how does it work?'
Again a visual analog for the collective Steeler Nation IQ