Global Warming Pie Chart

[Pete7469]

Theres Todd with that .02 degrees again.

What he'll tell you is that is based on a theory. Then he'll tell you how theories cant be proven therefore its not true....Then he'll bring up the .02 theory as proof

How much should we spend?
How much will it reduce temps?
Lay out your plan.

10 Million
40 degrees
Its my theory

And it's literally as valid as every other alarmist's theory. It also pulled out of the same orifice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Theres Todd with that .02 degrees again.

What he'll tell you is that is based on a theory. Then he'll tell you how theories cant be proven therefore its not true....Then he'll bring up the .02 theory as proof

How much should we spend?
How much will it reduce temps?
Lay out your plan.

10 Million
40 degrees
Its my theory

Excellent theory.
We've already spent more than 10 million.
Glad you don't need any more.

 

[JoeNormal]

You poor girl.

How many trillions should we spend to reduce warming by 0.2 degrees in 2080?

0.2 degrees? Where did you get that? Now that the permafrost is melting and releasing methane (100 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2), positive feedback is accelerating the process. The latest models predict a rise of 4 degrees C by mid century. This is an extinction level temperature rise because it leads to the death of the plants and plankton that supply the oxygen for the planet. The most dire predictions (from the computer models that have predicted the monster weather than we've seen) put that point around 20 years from now. If it's not already too late to do anything about this, it will be by the time that all the skeptics pull their heads out.

Give me your number then.
If we follow all your recommendations, how much will it cost?
How much will that reduce CO2 emissions?
How much will the reduced CO2 reduce global temps in 2080?

The most dire predictions (from the computer models that have predicted the monster weather than we've seen)

Which computer models? Link?

My number is 4 degrees C. After that, it won't much matter.

Here's a presentation made by a professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. It's long and detailed and most of all, scary but everyone should see it. It's pretty much point for point what the arctic scientists are saying.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ina16XSJQvM]The Twin Sides of the Fossil Fuel Coin - Guy MacPherson - YouTube[/ame]

What would I do? I think encouraging companies to allow telecommuting would help somewhat. Getting mass transit levels up many levels from where they are would as well. Mostly however, I think the world economy needs to slow down.

 

[BlindBoo]

Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."


"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com

Consensus is not always right. I just plowed 4 inches of global warming from my drive way.

Top 10 Science Mistakes : Science Channel

Warming isnt weather...

You plowed snow from your driveway? This late in March? Sounds normal..

Are you shitting me? As evidence of why you distrust science you post a link that starts with this

You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is…but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is.

Srsly? Ancient Greece?

Were you around in the 70's?

Yes it snowed in March during that decade.

Fact#1: The Earth has been cold before and, just like history, the climate of the earth does repeat itself. Here is one period that sticks out very well, the 1970’s; the earth was in a cool phase and it was even labeled the “Mini Ice Age”. Oh, and don’t forget the CO2 Emissions were on the rise during that time period, which has been labeled as the problem for Global Warming.

Fact#2: The Earth has been warmer in the past than it is now. There have been multiple periods in the earth’s climate cycle where temps have been warmer than they are now. So even without human made CO2, the earth still gets hot.

Fact#3: The third interesting thing is that in the 1970’s we hit a solar max, just like we are going to be doing in 2013. The solar max in the 1970’s had only sun activity of around 100 sunspots during that max. The reason this is important is because the max of 2013 is following right along the same path, which is setting the stage for a repeat in our climate cycle.

Fact#4: The sun controls more of the climate’s impact. Here is an interesting fact that I found during the research and building of my climate model; the United Nations Climate Freaks have also documented that the sun may be more important than originally planned in all of their climate models for 2013. So, why they are not accurately predicting the future?

Fact#5: The 1970’s were referred to as the Mini Ice Age. We were going through the cycle of heading to a solar min; during a solar min the Earth becomes cooler. If anyone remembers, during the winter of 2009 it was recorded that all “50 states of the US” had snow cover for the first time. This should have been one indicator that we were starting the cooling process. Oh yeah, and that was around one of those solar min’s as well.

read the rest here or stay ignorant.

 

[ClosedCaption]

How much should we spend?
How much will it reduce temps?
Lay out your plan.

10 Million
40 degrees
Its my theory

Excellent theory.
We've already spent more than 10 million.
Glad you don't need any more.

additional

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

0.2 degrees? Where did you get that? Now that the permafrost is melting and releasing methane (100 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2), positive feedback is accelerating the process. The latest models predict a rise of 4 degrees C by mid century. This is an extinction level temperature rise because it leads to the death of the plants and plankton that supply the oxygen for the planet. The most dire predictions (from the computer models that have predicted the monster weather than we've seen) put that point around 20 years from now. If it's not already too late to do anything about this, it will be by the time that all the skeptics pull their heads out.

Give me your number then.
If we follow all your recommendations, how much will it cost?
How much will that reduce CO2 emissions?
How much will the reduced CO2 reduce global temps in 2080?

The most dire predictions (from the computer models that have predicted the monster weather than we've seen)

Which computer models? Link?

My number is 4 degrees C. After that, it won't much matter.

Here's a presentation made by a professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. It's long and detailed and most of all, scary but everyone should see it. It's pretty much point for point what the arctic scientists are saying.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ina16XSJQvM]The Twin Sides of the Fossil Fuel Coin - Guy MacPherson - YouTube[/ame]

What would I do? I think encouraging companies to allow telecommuting would help somewhat. Getting mass transit levels up many levels from where they are would as well. Mostly however, I think the world economy needs to slow down.

How much do we need to spend to stop the 4 degree rise?

 

[Little-Acorn]

I see the usual hysterics are trying to pretend the controversy is over "global warming" instead of the real subject, "manmade global warming".

Who can blame them? They can't prove man has any influence on climate, or can do anything to change it in the future. If they try to argue thet, they'll lose in a landslide.

Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.

In truth, climates frequently change.

Sometimes the climate gets warmer.

And sometimes it gets colder.

That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.

And man has never had the slightest influence on it.

Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.

What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.

The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.

***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.

Is this a record?

(Probably not. Leftist loons have been with us a LONG time. )

 

[ClosedCaption]

You cant prove gravity either numbnuts...Go jump

 

[Little-Acorn]

The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.

You cant prove gravity either numbnuts...Go jump

Followed by the usual hysterical ranting and namecalling when the truth is pointed out.

These leftist fanatics are so predictable.....

 

[ClosedCaption]

The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.

You cant prove gravity either numbnuts...Go jump

Followed by the usual hysterical ranting and namecalling when the truth is pointed out.

These leftist fanatics are so predictable.....

Uh so you called names because truth was pointed out to you? Interesting you'd admit that

 

[ClosedCaption]

And you cant prove gravity exists by your standards that means it doesnt. See the folly in that logic?

 

[westwall]

Ignorance is not an excuse.

You talk about liberalism being a mental disease, and yet here you are posting something 180 degress the opposite of the facts.

The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the Corn Belt and a huge storm that caused broad devastation in the Middle Atlantic States, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.

An unusually warm March left the soil dried out in much of the country, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during what became the warmest July on record. Parched corn in Paola, Kan.

How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year’s 55.3 degree average demolished the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?_r=0

I do hope to read your apology, because this kind of posting requires one.

Still waiting for you to answer my question about what the goal of the governments is to fight "globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption" which hasn't happened for at least a decade but they are still pushing for something...so what is it?

I already posted a graphic that shows your golden decade of temperature stability to be complete bullshit. What more do you want? As for "globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption", the name was changed because cons are too dense to wrap their heads around the implications of anything simply called global warming.

No, you didn't. Here is a peer reviewed (sadly they have totally corrupted the process, but that's another story) paper by the head warmist himself who states quite clearly that there has been AT LEAST a decade of flat temps http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf and there are two other warmist groups 9the UK's Met Office, AND the IPCC) who state that it is 16 and 17 years respectively.

They then fall all over themselves trying to explain that a whole host of unnatural things are driving the cooling. All the while ignoring the Sun which has a 100% correlation with UV output and temp increase or decrease depending on how intense the UV release has been.

But that would be science and as we all know, you guys don't do science.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hey Westwall, student of history, I'm still waiting for you to show me where the history books said that when Temps were warmer the earth was better.

 

[westwall]

Westwall the history buff claims that history books taught us when its warmer the earth does better...you cant make this stuff up

You're right. You can't. Nor can you read...sad...

"10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

During the High Middle Ages in Europe experienced a climate slightly warmer than in the period preceding and the period following it. The summer temperatures were between 1 and 1.4 degrees higher than the average temperature of the 20th century. The winters were even warmer with an average temperature in England of 6 degrees, which is slightly warmer than for most of the 20th century. The warmer conditions were caused by the fact that the air circulation above the Atlantic changed position, as did the warm sea currents, transporting warmer water to the arctic.

In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.

Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements. It created the wealth and labour force to build cathedrals. It was a golden period for European Architecture and art."


Middle Ages - Environmental history timeline

 

[westwall]

Since there is no profit in Climate Models who do you think is supposed to pay for it? Govt shouldnt...ok so who should and why would they if theres no money to be made?

So....how many millions of dollars, hell BILLIONS of dollars have been granted/given to climatologists over the last 30 years and what have they given us? I'll give you a clue, it is around 100 BILLION dollars and for all of that they tell us that for the paltry expenditure of 76 TRILLION dollars we can lower the global temp by ONE degree in 100 YEARS........wait for it.......MAYBE!

As an aside the Manhattan project spen the equivalent of 20 billion dollars we ended WWII and got nuclear power out of it.

You guys crack me up. A well known charlatan Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than your so called scientists...

 

[JoeNormal]

Give me your number then.
If we follow all your recommendations, how much will it cost?
How much will that reduce CO2 emissions?
How much will the reduced CO2 reduce global temps in 2080?

The most dire predictions (from the computer models that have predicted the monster weather than we've seen)

Which computer models? Link?

My number is 4 degrees C. After that, it won't much matter.

Here's a presentation made by a professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. It's long and detailed and most of all, scary but everyone should see it. It's pretty much point for point what the arctic scientists are saying.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ina16XSJQvM]The Twin Sides of the Fossil Fuel Coin - Guy MacPherson - YouTube[/ame]

What would I do? I think encouraging companies to allow telecommuting would help somewhat. Getting mass transit levels up many levels from where they are would as well. Mostly however, I think the world economy needs to slow down.

How much do we need to spend to stop the 4 degree rise?

Not sure what we'd spend it on. Maybe climatic engineering if it had any hope of working. I think the real question is, how do we change our behavior to avert disaster? The professor in the video is optimistic that global financial collapse will do the job. Personally, I'd like to be more proactive and a little less 'let the chips fall where they may'.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Westwall the history buff claims that history books taught us when its warmer the earth does better...you cant make this stuff up

You're right. You can't. Nor can you read...sad...

"10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

During the High Middle Ages in Europe experienced a climate slightly warmer than in the period preceding and the period following it. The summer temperatures were between 1 and 1.4 degrees higher than the average temperature of the 20th century. The winters were even warmer with an average temperature in England of 6 degrees, which is slightly warmer than for most of the 20th century. The warmer conditions were caused by the fact that the air circulation above the Atlantic changed position, as did the warm sea currents, transporting warmer water to the arctic.

In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.

Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements. It created the wealth and labour force to build cathedrals. It was a golden period for European Architecture and art."


Middle Ages - Environmental history timeline

Europe and Earth both begin with E but they arent the same thing

 

[BlindBoo]

Still waiting for you to answer my question about what the goal of the governments is to fight "globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption" which hasn't happened for at least a decade but they are still pushing for something...so what is it?

I already posted a graphic that shows your golden decade of temperature stability to be complete bullshit. What more do you want? As for "globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption", the name was changed because cons are too dense to wrap their heads around the implications of anything simply called global warming.

No, you didn't. Here is a peer reviewed (sadly they have totally corrupted the process, but that's another story) paper by the head warmist himself who states quite clearly that there has been AT LEAST a decade of flat temps http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf and there are two other warmist groups 9the UK's Met Office, AND the IPCC) who state that it is 16 and 17 years respectively.

They then fall all over themselves trying to explain that a whole host of unnatural things are driving the cooling. All the while ignoring the Sun which has a 100% correlation with UV output and temp increase or decrease depending on how intense the UV release has been.

But that would be science and as we all know, you guys don't do science.

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012)due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.

(Updated 2013/03/01)

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

 

[JoeNormal]

Still waiting for you to answer my question about what the goal of the governments is to fight "globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption" which hasn't happened for at least a decade but they are still pushing for something...so what is it?

I already posted a graphic that shows your golden decade of temperature stability to be complete bullshit. What more do you want? As for "globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption", the name was changed because cons are too dense to wrap their heads around the implications of anything simply called global warming.

No, you didn't. Here is a peer reviewed (sadly they have totally corrupted the process, but that's another story) paper by the head warmist himself who states quite clearly that there has been AT LEAST a decade of flat temps http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf and there are two other warmist groups 9the UK's Met Office, AND the IPCC) who state that it is 16 and 17 years respectively.

They then fall all over themselves trying to explain that a whole host of unnatural things are driving the cooling. All the while ignoring the Sun which has a 100% correlation with UV output and temp increase or decrease depending on how intense the UV release has been.

But that would be science and as we all know, you guys don't do science.

I had this same argument several years ago with a climate change denier and to address her point, had to do my own math using the raw data and Matlab. I discovered on my own that the last few years are not the only period that you could find if you cherry picked the data where a downward or stable trend could be found. Did you look at the graphic long enough to see the stepped version that you seem to buy into so completely? It's an animated GIF.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Since there is no profit in Climate Models who do you think is supposed to pay for it? Govt shouldnt...ok so who should and why would they if theres no money to be made?

So....how many millions of dollars, hell BILLIONS of dollars have been granted/given to climatologists over the last 30 years and what have they given us? I'll give you a clue, it is around 100 BILLION dollars and for all of that they tell us that for the paltry expenditure of 76 TRILLION dollars we can lower the global temp by ONE degree in 100 YEARS........wait for it.......MAYBE!

As an aside the Manhattan project spen the equivalent of 20 billion dollars we ended WWII and got nuclear power out of it.

You guys crack me up. A well known charlatan Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than your so called scientists...

Its about so much more than tempurature.