Pollution, climate change, or control?

[Redfish]

which is having precisely ZERO effect on temperatures....

Many scientist disagree with that.

only the ones getting paid to hold that opinion.

 

[BlindBoo]

Many scientist disagree with that.

Many scientist....

great English, parrot. If you cannot answer the question, hide behind whoever you were parroting while pretending it was "your" opinion...

Are you saying it's not true? You didn't ask a question. What opinion are you claiming I'm pretending is mine again? Burning fossil fuel is increasing the amount of CO2 and many scientist believe that the extra CO2 is increasing the temperature.

 

[BlindBoo]

which is having precisely ZERO effect on temperatures....

Many scientist disagree with that.

only the ones getting paid to hold that opinion.

There you go Dex, there is an opinion, and a bias one at that!

 

[LaDexter]

Are you saying it's not true?

The highly correlated satellite and balloon data said it isn't happening. Then that data was fudged, and you insist on parroting those who fudged it, as I just documented.

You didn't ask a question

I have asked many questions here that remain unanswered.

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

Is Antarctica an "ice age?"

What is causing the Marshall Islands to sink?

many scientist believe that the extra CO2 is increasing the temperature.

sub human....

lol

try again... WHO are you PARROTING.... the "many scientist"

Those aren't "scientists" because they do not practice science, or they would've answered my questions instead of censored them...

 

[LaDexter]

there is an opinion,

Citing actual data from satellites and balloons is not an opinion, sub human.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sure there could be, it's fair to expose and investigate. But I don't think that applies to the majority of the studies and data that has been collected from researchers around the world over the past few decades.

see post #71 and then get the "scientists" to explain how man caused the heating and cooling cycles thousands of years ago.

The arguement isn't that man is causing the cycles, it is that the rate the cycles are occurring are accelerating exponentially

BS. the entire religion of AGW is based on man causing climate change. How exactly is man causing the cycles to increase in frequency?

I believe the effects are seen in the amplitude of the cycles, during the peaks and valleys, not necessarily the frequency. By burning fossil fuels we are increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. It is virtually the same today as it was a million years ago. CO2 is not a pollutant.

in 1850 it was .028%. And ....

"The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years."

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

 

[BlindBoo]

there is an opinion,

Citing actual data from satellites and balloons is not an opinion, sub human.

Fishyfish was not citing any data when he said "only the ones getting paid to hold that opinion."

 

[LaDexter]

Yawn....

Highly correlated satellite and balloon data shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite the CO2 rise.

Since NA thawed while Greenland froze over the past million years, CO2 is proven to have nothing to do with either event, since it was constant for both.

There is no ongoing net ice melt on the planet, especially since 90% of the Earth's ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of new net ice every year since Algore started lying...

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses


which is why your heroes "the many scientist" try to pawn the Marshall Islands off as evidence of "ocean rise," since there is no ocean rise, and the Marshall Islands are sinking because the tectonic plate to which they are attached is sinking because of the Pacific Ring of Fire.


Repeat after me:

parroting is not science
fudging data is not science
lying is not science
misdiagnosing is not science
FRAUD is not science

Global Warming was never science.

 

[mamooth]

The highly correlated satellite and balloon data said it isn't happening.

Both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) measurements show the ongoing strong warming, and both correlate strongly with the surface temperature measurements. Only the most weasel-like cult liars pretend otherwise.

That is, LaDexter is faking stories again. Everything he says anywhere is always tasty chocolate fudge. If it comes from LaDexter, one should always initially assume it's fraudulent, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

I have asked many questions here that remain unanswered.

We've answered your questions over and over. In response, you always pretend to not have seen the answers. Your simpering cowardice is your other defining trait, along with your pathological dishonesty.

 

[washamericom]

So "the sun" melted NA while it froze Greenland at the same time?????

LMFAO!!!

that wily old sunball.

 

[washamericom]

much of the data has been proven fraudulent. why do you suppose anyone would falsify climate data? Could there be a financial motive? Ya think?

Sure there could be, it's fair to expose and investigate. But I don't think that applies to the majority of the studies and data that has been collected from researchers around the world over the past few decades.

see post #71 and then get the "scientists" to explain how man caused the heating and cooling cycles thousands of years ago.

The arguement isn't that man is causing the cycles, it is that the rate the cycles are occurring are accelerating exponentially

BS. the entire religion of AGW is based on man causing climate change. How exactly is man causing the cycles to increase in frequency?

How? By stripping the earth of its resources and pumping extraordinary amounts of pollutants into our atmosphere.

that's why were here.

 

[Wyatt earp]

all island sink,

WRONG - Hawaii is not sinking, Catalina is not sinking - no islands are sinking except the three chains RIGHT ON THE LIP OF THE PROF

You fucking idiot again the ocean floor ls littered with past Hawaii islands how many times must we tell you that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

all island sink,

WRONG - Hawaii is not sinking, Catalina is not sinking - no islands are sinking except the three chains RIGHT ON THE LIP OF THE PROF

The age trend of the volcanoes is thought to be due to the way in which the islands are built on the moving sea floor of the North Pacific Ocean: the Pacific Ocean is mostly floored by a single tectonic plate (known as the "Pacific Plate") that is moving over the layer in the Earth known as the Asthenosphere. This movement takes it to the northwest compared to the layers below it at a rate of 5 to 10 cm/yr (the rate depends on where you are on it). As the plate moves over a fixed spot deeper in the Earth where magma (molten lava) forms, a new volcano can punch through this plate and create an island. The Hawaiian Islands are believed to be formed from one such 'hot spot'. As the plate moves away, the volcano stops erupting and a new one is formed in its place. With time, the volcanoes keep drifting westward and getting older relative to the one active volcano that is over the hot spot. As they age, the crust upon which they sit cools and subsides. This, combined with erosion of the islands once active volcanism stops, leads to a shrinking of the islands with age and their eventual submergence below the ocean surface.

 

[washamericom]

WRONG - Hawaii is not sinking, Catalina is not sinking - no islands are sinking except the three chains RIGHT ON THE LIP OF THE PROF


what's the problem. that meatpipe gore had my family believing florida would be underwater by now. fuckin move' that's all.

 

[Wyatt earp]

WRONG - Hawaii is not sinking, Catalina is not sinking - no islands are sinking except the three chains RIGHT ON THE LIP OF THE PROF

Dumbass, no islands are sinking. The oceans are rising. It's not rocket science. Even a 1st grader can understand it, yet you can't. That's why you're the only mouthbreather anywhere screaming that islands are sinking.

You both are retarded.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

see post #71 and then get the "scientists" to explain how man caused the heating and cooling cycles thousands of years ago.

The arguement isn't that man is causing the cycles, it is that the rate the cycles are occurring are accelerating exponentially

BS. the entire religion of AGW is based on man causing climate change. How exactly is man causing the cycles to increase in frequency?

I believe the effects are seen in the amplitude of the cycles, during the peaks and valleys, not necessarily the frequency. By burning fossil fuels we are increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. It is virtually the same today as it was a million years ago. CO2 is not a pollutant.

in 1850 it was .028%. And ....

"The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years."

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

And dinosaurs were huge..so what's your point?

.

 

[radical right]

The age trend of the volcanoes is thought to be due to the way in which the islands are built on the moving sea floor of the North Pacific Ocean: the Pacific Ocean is mostly floored by a single tectonic plate (known as the "Pacific Plate") that is moving over the layer in the Earth known as the Asthenosphere. This movement takes it to the northwest compared to the layers below it at a rate of 5 to 10 cm/yr (the rate depends on where you are on it). As the plate moves over a fixed spot deeper in the Earth where magma (molten lava) forms, a new volcano can punch through this plate and create an island. The Hawaiian Islands are believed to be formed from one such 'hot spot'. As the plate moves away, the volcano stops erupting and a new one is formed in its place. With time, the volcanoes keep drifting westward and getting older relative to the one active volcano that is over the hot spot. As they age, the crust upon which they sit cools and subsides. This, combined with erosion of the islands once active volcanism stops, leads to a shrinking of the islands with age and their eventual submergence below the ocean surface.

You forgot something: "Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geology of Hawaii" by Macdonald, Abbott and Peterson (2nd ed.) Univ. of Hawaii Press, Honolulu (1983).

 

[Wyatt earp]

The age trend of the volcanoes is thought to be due to the way in which the islands are built on the moving sea floor of the North Pacific Ocean: the Pacific Ocean is mostly floored by a single tectonic plate (known as the "Pacific Plate") that is moving over the layer in the Earth known as the Asthenosphere. This movement takes it to the northwest compared to the layers below it at a rate of 5 to 10 cm/yr (the rate depends on where you are on it). As the plate moves over a fixed spot deeper in the Earth where magma (molten lava) forms, a new volcano can punch through this plate and create an island. The Hawaiian Islands are believed to be formed from one such 'hot spot'. As the plate moves away, the volcano stops erupting and a new one is formed in its place. With time, the volcanoes keep drifting westward and getting older relative to the one active volcano that is over the hot spot. As they age, the crust upon which they sit cools and subsides. This, combined with erosion of the islands once active volcanism stops, leads to a shrinking of the islands with age and their eventual submergence below the ocean surface.

You forgot something: "Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geology of Hawaii" by Macdonald, Abbott and Peterson (2nd ed.) Univ. of Hawaii Press, Honolulu (1983).

I think I know what your getting at, the make up of them

But the plate moves and sits on a hot spot...


.

 

[eagle7_31]

trying to understand what is really behind the left's obsession with "man made climate change".

If its reducing man made pollution, I am all in with them. So are 99% of the people of planet earth.

If its an unproven link between pollution and climate, its bunk and not necessary----- if the goal is reducing pollution

If its controlling human activity, which I believe it is, then they can stick it where the sun never shines.
Liberals seem to think that they know how the rest of us should live and want to force us to live as they dictate, where to set our thermostats, what kind of light bulbs, what kind of cars, what kind of food, how our power is generated, where we can travel, and what we must believe---------------because they have all the answers and they are always right.

Listen libs, pollution is bad, everyone wants to stop pollution. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate to make the case for stopping pollution. Soooooooooo, your real issue has to be control of the actions of others.

Comments?

Control

 

[Redfish]

which is having precisely ZERO effect on temperatures....

Many scientist disagree with that.

only the ones getting paid to hold that opinion.

There you go Dex, there is an opinion, and a bias one at that!

the falsifying of data by those receiving grants to "prove AGW" has been well established many times.