Climate alarmists predicted CATASTROPHY by 2015!!!!

[Geaux4it]

With any luck the group will lead Obama out on a glacier and it will crack and ooooppppsss.

Maybe GW is not such a bad thing after all

-Geaux

 

[Old Rocks]

With any luck the group will lead Obama out on a glacier and it will crack and ooooppppsss.

Maybe GW is not such a bad thing after all

-Geaux

Perhaps people like you will die off as age takes it's toll, and young people who not mean of spirit and small of soul will take your place. And the world will be a far better place.

 

[Old Rocks]

And both posts should be removed, off topic.

 

[Geaux4it]

With any luck the group will lead Obama out on a glacier and it will crack and ooooppppsss.

Maybe GW is not such a bad thing after all

-Geaux

Perhaps people like you will die off as age takes it's toll, and young people who not mean of spirit and small of soul will take your place. And the world will be a far better place.

Good luck with that.

-Geaux

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ummmm, it's called GRAVITY! Every particle in the asteroid belt affects every other particle in the belt.

And technically, the gravity of my cat affects any satellite in orbit around earth, yet they don't need to make orbital corrections because of the movements of my cat.

People with brains understand the scales of the math and physics involved. You don't. A hundred-meter asteroid has no significant gravity affect on anything unless it passes right next to it. And since the scenario in question assumed we had mapped 100% of such objects, we would know 100% of the time when that happened.

And all of those are further perturbed by Jupiter, and its moons, and the whole mess is likewise perturbed by the SUN, you know that huge orange/yellow ball in the sky? You are familiar with that thing right?

Now Westwall's implied claim is that scientists don't take into account the gravitational effect of the Sun and Jupiter when calculating asteroid orbits. That's more fine denier "Those scientists don't know 'nuffin!" conspiracy blathering.

You know, admiral, your lack of scientific understanding is pretty remarkable, even for a dumbass such as yourself!

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. I can pull if off, because I'm smart. You can't, because you're not.

It shouldn't keep surprising me, given how often you display it, the magnitude of your abject ignorance in every aspect of science and logic. But at least you're well-rounded, a sort of renaissance man of failure.

No, I stated YOU don't take the Sun into account. You somehow think that a trace gas has more impact on Earths temperature than this huge oblate spheroid burning at millions of degrees. That makes you

You know, Mr. Westwall, increasingly you are coming across as someone of the same intellectual level as Mr. CrusaderFrank. Nobody has ever attempted to say anything like that. And we have satellites in orbit that constantly measure the amount of energy we get from the sun. Which has decreased slightly in the past decade or so.

Two things determine the temperature of the surface of the Earth. The amount of energy it recieves from the sun, and the amount of energy it retains. A trace gas, indeed, does make a differance in the temperature of the surface of the Earth.

Show us an experiment that shows this trace gas has any impact at all. Every "experiment" you have ever presented merely demonstrates the Ideal Gas Laws and nothing else. And yes, retains is the operative word. Water vapor prevents heat from escaping back to space. CO2 doesn't.

That is what you claim, yet the physicists say that CO2 is a potent GHG. Now who to believe, real scientists, or a fraud on the internet.,

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Post all you want, you have ZERO experiment you can point to.

NONE

Not a single experiment that shows in a repeatable lab setting how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature at all, much less by 1.6C

Not one single experiment

 

[skookerasbil]

The AGW mental meltdown con.......tin.......ues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh.....but the science is settled!!!

 

[jc456]

No, I stated YOU don't take the Sun into account.

Oh, you're just flat out making shit up. Why didn't you just say so, and save everyone some time?

You somehow think that a trace gas has more impact on Earths temperature than this huge oblate spheroid burning at millions of degrees. That makes you

I think it's more like that makes you dishonest and stupid. Good god, you're parroting Frank now. That would bother any normal person, that they've devolved that far.

Point is, you've drunk too much koolaid to recover, so you're going to be laughed at for the rest of your life. We could even feel sorry for you, if you hadn't deliberately chosen such a deviant lifestyle. Oh well. I hope the ego-stroking you obtain from your cult affiliation makes up for all the humiliation.

so you still can't provide the experiment that proves your statement about trace gas. and you wish us to have a discussion that you can't keep up with.

 

[jc456]

Again I'll say........you ALWAYS see in this forum, as posted by the hard core AGW religion.......this "conservatives are irrelevant on the science". Republicans are an afterthought compared to the masses on climate change!!! "The science is settled"

Hmmm..............which begs the question ( I feel an appearance from the knobby coming here!!)????

When this kind of thread is posted, why do the heads of the AGW nutters explode? The tons of alarmist predictions that explode in fAiL ALL THE TIME!!! This thread started just yesterday..........ITS ALREADY 10 PAGES LONG!!!!!!!

']

[/URL]']
'][/URL]

These people fall all over themselves going mental trying to not look fucking stoopid as shit!!![/URL]

and yet the stoopid shines

 

[jc456]

Ummmm, it's called GRAVITY! Every particle in the asteroid belt affects every other particle in the belt.

And technically, the gravity of my cat affects any satellite in orbit around earth, yet they don't need to make orbital corrections because of the movements of my cat.

People with brains understand the scales of the math and physics involved. You don't. A hundred-meter asteroid has no significant gravity affect on anything unless it passes right next to it. And since the scenario in question assumed we had mapped 100% of such objects, we would know 100% of the time when that happened.

And all of those are further perturbed by Jupiter, and its moons, and the whole mess is likewise perturbed by the SUN, you know that huge orange/yellow ball in the sky? You are familiar with that thing right?

Now Westwall's implied claim is that scientists don't take into account the gravitational effect of the Sun and Jupiter when calculating asteroid orbits. That's more fine denier "Those scientists don't know 'nuffin!" conspiracy blathering.

You know, admiral, your lack of scientific understanding is pretty remarkable, even for a dumbass such as yourself!

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. I can pull if off, because I'm smart. You can't, because you're not.

It shouldn't keep surprising me, given how often you display it, the magnitude of your abject ignorance in every aspect of science and logic. But at least you're well-rounded, a sort of renaissance man of failure.

No, I stated YOU don't take the Sun into account. You somehow think that a trace gas has more impact on Earths temperature than this huge oblate spheroid burning at millions of degrees. That makes you

You know, Mr. Westwall, increasingly you are coming across as someone of the same intellectual level as Mr. CrusaderFrank. Nobody has ever attempted to say anything like that. And we have satellites in orbit that constantly measure the amount of energy we get from the sun. Which has decreased slightly in the past decade or so.

Two things determine the temperature of the surface of the Earth. The amount of energy it recieves from the sun, and the amount of energy it retains. A trace gas, indeed, does make a differance in the temperature of the surface of the Earth.

Show us an experiment that shows this trace gas has any impact at all. Every "experiment" you have ever presented merely demonstrates the Ideal Gas Laws and nothing else. And yes, retains is the operative word. Water vapor prevents heat from escaping back to space. CO2 doesn't.

That is what you claim, yet the physicists say that CO2 is a potent GHG. Now who to believe, real scientists, or a fraud on the internet.,

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

dude, again, there isn't an experiment in there except for the one that Herr Koch did in 1901, I've told you and replied to everyone of these ridicules attempts to show something that it doesn't show. SHOW AN EXPERIMENT that disproves Koch! Can you read?

 

[jc456]

Mr. Beale, do you have anything to contribute other than some rather stupid cartoons? Perhaps an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal? That is what is so lovable about you deniars. You think that stupidity equals real science.

seriously, are you seriously that stooopid to miss the humor in that? Really, why didn't you post the same thing at nuddity

 

[flacaltenn]

You know............the permafrost on the Alaskan coastline is melting, and many Native American tribes that lived on the coast are having to be relocated further inland due to the erosion of the coastline.

Sorry...................but this is the first time in my life I've ever heard of the Alaskan coastline eroding so quickly due to the permafrost melt.

You do realize that the permafrost in many areas is less than 10,000 years old right? That means that within mans habitation of the American continents there was no permafrost there. You do realize that........ right?

Similar to the typical age of that Arctic Sea Ice that "is melting at a unprecedented scale" --- Average age there of the VOLUME is about 10 years. Of the EXTENT --- much less.. Could all disappear for a month in the summer and be restored in a decade or two..

 

[flacaltenn]

Ummmm, it's called GRAVITY! Every particle in the asteroid belt affects every other particle in the belt.

And technically, the gravity of my cat affects any satellite in orbit around earth, yet they don't need to make orbital corrections because of the movements of my cat.

People with brains understand the scales of the math and physics involved. You don't. A hundred-meter asteroid has no significant gravity affect on anything unless it passes right next to it. And since the scenario in question assumed we had mapped 100% of such objects, we would know 100% of the time when that happened.

And all of those are further perturbed by Jupiter, and its moons, and the whole mess is likewise perturbed by the SUN, you know that huge orange/yellow ball in the sky? You are familiar with that thing right?

Now Westwall's implied claim is that scientists don't take into account the gravitational effect of the Sun and Jupiter when calculating asteroid orbits. That's more fine denier "Those scientists don't know 'nuffin!" conspiracy blathering.

You know, admiral, your lack of scientific understanding is pretty remarkable, even for a dumbass such as yourself!

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. I can pull if off, because I'm smart. You can't, because you're not.

It shouldn't keep surprising me, given how often you display it, the magnitude of your abject ignorance in every aspect of science and logic. But at least you're well-rounded, a sort of renaissance man of failure.

No, I stated YOU don't take the Sun into account. You somehow think that a trace gas has more impact on Earths temperature than this huge oblate spheroid burning at millions of degrees. That makes you

You know, Mr. Westwall, increasingly you are coming across as someone of the same intellectual level as Mr. CrusaderFrank. Nobody has ever attempted to say anything like that. And we have satellites in orbit that constantly measure the amount of energy we get from the sun. Which has decreased slightly in the past decade or so.

Two things determine the temperature of the surface of the Earth. The amount of energy it recieves from the sun, and the amount of energy it retains. A trace gas, indeed, does make a differance in the temperature of the surface of the Earth.

Show us an experiment that shows this trace gas has any impact at all. Every "experiment" you have ever presented merely demonstrates the Ideal Gas Laws and nothing else. And yes, retains is the operative word. Water vapor prevents heat from escaping back to space. CO2 doesn't.

That is what you claim, yet the physicists say that CO2 is a potent GHG. Now who to believe, real scientists, or a fraud on the internet.,

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Scientists dont' say CO2 is "POTENT" GreenHouse gas. It has an inherent warming power of 1degC/doubling.. All it's POTENCY given to it by GWarming theory is that the Earth's climate will self destruct with ANY 2degC forcing from sun or orbit, or GHGases.

 

[MisterBeale]

Mr. Beale, do you have anything to contribute other than some rather stupid cartoons? Perhaps an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal? That is what is so lovable about you deniars. You think that stupidity equals real science.

I already presented USGS data, you failed to address it. It was HARD DATA. All I got was crickets. Here it is, the hypothesis, and that hard data. It is the reason the solar system has seen more asteroids, comets, and over all, more change. The position of our Earth is in the exact same place as it was when it was hit by the comets that made the Dinosaurs extinct. Think about that a moment. The solar system is being bombarded with changes because of where we are in the Galaxy, and you want to believe elite propaganda about how much we affect this little blue-green orb. We are, essentially, powerless compared to the forces of nature. I don't see how you can't grasp that. We are like ants in the woods, or dust in the wind. What ever we do, it doesn't matter.

PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF

THE EARTH AND LIFE
PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE

 

[flacaltenn]

Very interesting. Where, in that whole article, does it say that the source of the 10,000 year old sample was a layer of permafrost made up of a single layer of that age? Seems to me you are making an assumption for which there is no base. Not only that, it also states in the highlighted sentence that there were other samples taken from layers that were 20,000 and 300,000 to 400,000 years old.

Beringian Paleoecology Inferred from Permafrost-Preserved Fungal DNA

The abstract speaks of the protocals to avoid contamination during drilling for the samples. Would not be surprised if many of the samples of various ages were from one drill hole.

So when you whine and carry on about the permafrost melting in Alaska --- Where is YOUR LINK as to the AGE of what is OBSERVED to be melting?? Seems to me --- It never occurred to you before that the last 10,000 year layer is probably pretty thick and the first to go...

Promise us that next time you well up in tears about melting permafrost --- that you will DATE IT for us so that we can worry when the melt levels pass the 1900s ......

 

[jc456]

Very interesting. Where, in that whole article, does it say that the source of the 10,000 year old sample was a layer of permafrost made up of a single layer of that age? Seems to me you are making an assumption for which there is no base. Not only that, it also states in the highlighted sentence that there were other samples taken from layers that were 20,000 and 300,000 to 400,000 years old.

Beringian Paleoecology Inferred from Permafrost-Preserved Fungal DNA

The abstract speaks of the protocals to avoid contamination during drilling for the samples. Would not be surprised if many of the samples of various ages were from one drill hole.

So when you whine and carry on about the permafrost melting in Alaska --- Where is YOUR LINK as to the AGE of what is OBSERVED to be melting?? Seems to me --- It never occurred to you before that the last 10,000 year layer is probably pretty thick and the first to go...

Promise us that next time you well up in tears about melting permafrost --- that you will DATE IT for us so that we can worry when the melt levels pass the 1900s ......

I read it takes hundreds even thousands of years to melt. So how exactly is climate change causing this?

excerpt from Weather Underground:
"The Effect of Climate Change on Permafrost

Climate change will significantly affect the complex interactions between above- and below-ground climate regimes. However, even changes in temperature at the surface take time to impact permafrost at depth; According to the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), "for thick permafrost this lag may be on the order of hundreds to thousands of years, for thin permafrost, years to decades" (GSC, 2007).

In a recent study using freezing/thawing index, trend analysis of spatial data since 1970 indicates that in recent decades, there has been a decrease in freezing during the cold season throughout North America's permafrost regions. Additionally, coastal areas and eastern Canada have started to see "significant" increases in warm season thawing of permafrost (Frauenfeld et al., 2007). Overall, this means there has been a decrease in freeze depths and in the amount of permanent permafrost. Conversely, there has been an increase in seasonal permafrost. This increase in seasonal permafrost is not due to increases in acres frozen, but to the decrease in permanent permafrost which is not remaining frozen all year anymore. Since it is no longer perennially frozen, it loses its distinction as 'permanent' and becomes 'seasonal'.

 

[MisterBeale]

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax
A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax
The growing problem for the CRU and the entire global warming hoax was that no clear evidence existed to blame mankind for changes in the climate and still largely unknown to the public was the fact that the Earth has passed through many natural cycles of warmth and cooling. If humans were responsible, how could the CRU explain a succession of ice ages over millions of years?

The CRU emails revealed their growing concerns regarding a cooling cycle that had begun in the late 1990s and now, some seventeen years later, the Earth is in a widely recognized cooling cycle.

Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends. There was advocacy of solar and wind power to replace them and nations undertook costly programs to bring about the reduction of the CO2 “fossil fuels” produced and spent billions on the “green” energy. That program is being abandoned.

At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.

 

[MisterBeale]

Very interesting. Where, in that whole article, does it say that the source of the 10,000 year old sample was a layer of permafrost made up of a single layer of that age? Seems to me you are making an assumption for which there is no base. Not only that, it also states in the highlighted sentence that there were other samples taken from layers that were 20,000 and 300,000 to 400,000 years old.

Beringian Paleoecology Inferred from Permafrost-Preserved Fungal DNA

The abstract speaks of the protocals to avoid contamination during drilling for the samples. Would not be surprised if many of the samples of various ages were from one drill hole.

So when you whine and carry on about the permafrost melting in Alaska --- Where is YOUR LINK as to the AGE of what is OBSERVED to be melting?? Seems to me --- It never occurred to you before that the last 10,000 year layer is probably pretty thick and the first to go...

Promise us that next time you well up in tears about melting permafrost --- that you will DATE IT for us so that we can worry when the melt levels pass the 1900s ......

I read it takes hundreds even thousands of years to melt. So how exactly is climate change causing this?

excerpt from Weather Underground:
"The Effect of Climate Change on Permafrost

Climate change will significantly affect the complex interactions between above- and below-ground climate regimes. However, even changes in temperature at the surface take time to impact permafrost at depth; According to the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), "for thick permafrost this lag may be on the order of hundreds to thousands of years, for thin permafrost, years to decades" (GSC, 2007).

In a recent study using freezing/thawing index, trend analysis of spatial data since 1970 indicates that in recent decades, there has been a decrease in freezing during the cold season throughout North America's permafrost regions. Additionally, coastal areas and eastern Canada have started to see "significant" increases in warm season thawing of permafrost (Frauenfeld et al., 2007). Overall, this means there has been a decrease in freeze depths and in the amount of permanent permafrost. Conversely, there has been an increase in seasonal permafrost. This increase in seasonal permafrost is not due to increases in acres frozen, but to the decrease in permanent permafrost which is not remaining frozen all year anymore. Since it is no longer perennially frozen, it loses its distinction as 'permanent' and becomes 'seasonal'.

So what? This doesn't mean humans caused this. . . .

 

[jc456]

Very interesting. Where, in that whole article, does it say that the source of the 10,000 year old sample was a layer of permafrost made up of a single layer of that age? Seems to me you are making an assumption for which there is no base. Not only that, it also states in the highlighted sentence that there were other samples taken from layers that were 20,000 and 300,000 to 400,000 years old.

Beringian Paleoecology Inferred from Permafrost-Preserved Fungal DNA

The abstract speaks of the protocals to avoid contamination during drilling for the samples. Would not be surprised if many of the samples of various ages were from one drill hole.

So when you whine and carry on about the permafrost melting in Alaska --- Where is YOUR LINK as to the AGE of what is OBSERVED to be melting?? Seems to me --- It never occurred to you before that the last 10,000 year layer is probably pretty thick and the first to go...

Promise us that next time you well up in tears about melting permafrost --- that you will DATE IT for us so that we can worry when the melt levels pass the 1900s ......

I read it takes hundreds even thousands of years to melt. So how exactly is climate change causing this?

excerpt from Weather Underground:
"The Effect of Climate Change on Permafrost

Climate change will significantly affect the complex interactions between above- and below-ground climate regimes. However, even changes in temperature at the surface take time to impact permafrost at depth; According to the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), "for thick permafrost this lag may be on the order of hundreds to thousands of years, for thin permafrost, years to decades" (GSC, 2007).

In a recent study using freezing/thawing index, trend analysis of spatial data since 1970 indicates that in recent decades, there has been a decrease in freezing during the cold season throughout North America's permafrost regions. Additionally, coastal areas and eastern Canada have started to see "significant" increases in warm season thawing of permafrost (Frauenfeld et al., 2007). Overall, this means there has been a decrease in freeze depths and in the amount of permanent permafrost. Conversely, there has been an increase in seasonal permafrost. This increase in seasonal permafrost is not due to increases in acres frozen, but to the decrease in permanent permafrost which is not remaining frozen all year anymore. Since it is no longer perennially frozen, it loses its distinction as 'permanent' and becomes 'seasonal'.

So what? This doesn't mean humans caused this. . . .

exactly my point!!!!!!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sorry............but I'm with 97 percent of the scientists and I also believe that mankind is causing climate change.

Part of the warming in the Pacific is because of all the plastic crap floating in the ocean, and that is having a significant impact on the weather in the Pacific.

Combine that with all the crap we spew into the air, and you can see that if we don't start doing something soon, we might end up breaking the planet.

Yeah................the human race is going to become extinct, and we're the ones that caused it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets face it............the alarmist climate k00ks have been predicting disaster for 2 decades now and don't have dick to show for it.........which is why the public has tuned out these cheesedicks. In fact, the bomb throwing has actually resulted in a precipitous fall in the caring factor in the last 7 or 8 years..............

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html][/URL]








[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/bumfook_1.jpg.html][/URL]