Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists

[ScienceRocks]

these Liberal/commie so called (scientist) on the governments payrolls around the world. their gig is all about CONTROL and not of the freaking earths climate. because they can't do a damn thing about it: UNLESS it HURTS YOU and you living/lifestyle . wake up

If you don't believe in government, science or the funding of basic things like infrastructure...Well, Somalia maybe the place for you....

Not saying that Obama hasn't set back this country decades in the mid term.

The best objective science funded by government will always be found in DARPA. Oh and sociology, psychology, and anthropology, they got a wealth of data to go off of with the NSA and how to say and tweak things a certain way to get the population to go along with what they want. But I think science gets a long just fine... Actually better when a government isn't holding a stick and carrot. Didn't see tesla or Edison being told where to go by the stick and carrot. Don't see much stick and carrot in Silicon Valley... Although that's getting worse. Only time the Stick and carrot was good, was when Kennedy told NASA their goal was the moon, and you have this much time... But NASA was a govt program. How much did the govt help in developing FM radio...or the telephone, I seem to remember those techs being nothing but held back by the govt. How long was gps out for until the govt decided to let the surfs use it? How slow is the internet after all these years with absence of govt regulation. Ask Eric Schmidt how long have we had the tech for the driverless car, and why we haven't made it sooner

Great so we can zero out all funding for Climate change

Why? You don't think we should understand our planets climates? I think we should fund science more as we learn more and we're better off doing so. I hate you loserterians as you don't believe in science or explorations.

Do us a favor, hop up and down on the planet to move it further from the Sun

How much will the oceans cool for each 10PPM reduction in CO2?

Answer with a number.

I don't know as I am NOT a climate scientist. With more research maybe one of those can find your answer...Science is always evolving...

Of course you would defund it and want it to stop.

I want a number. Should be simple enough but it feels like asking Bernie Madoff for his numbers

You won't get those numbers defunding climate science. You stupid piece of shit.

 

[sakinago]

The Drought Index, which is what is displayed in the graphs I posted, is calculated from temperature and rainfall. And droughts like the current one haven't happened in over 1,200 years. So, NOT often. As to Las Vegas and the drought, we most certainly do hear concerns expressed.

Region in jeopardy How we might beat Western drought - Las Vegas Sun News

Feds project Lake Mead below drought trigger point in 2017 - Las Vegas Sun News

Drought Information Statement Products for Las Vegas NV

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/18/...g-las-vegas-take-extreme-measures-258092.html

As Lake Mead Levels Drop The West Braces For Bigger Drought Impact NPR

and so forth

What "real renewable energy" do you believe "people in power" are "squashing"? The government has provided subsidies and tax breaks for wind, solar PV, solar thermal and other alternative technologies. Please clarify.

Irrigating the desert is not a viable solution to global warming - certainly not by itself. Look at this graph of CO2 resulting from the deforestation just in the Amazon basin: In 2001, the loss of 1.6 million hectares (~4 million acres) added, in effect, 600 million tonnes of CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere. Human combustion of fossil fuel in that same year, added about 25 billion tons. The deforestation of the Amazon was responsible for about 2.4% of added CO2. If you think you can irrigate and plant an area of desert equal to 42 times the area lost in the Amazon, more power to you.

Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post. Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations. If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.

And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions, much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon...or any aerobic being for that matter. And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.

Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years, And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.

 

[sakinago]

The Drought Index, which is what is displayed in the graphs I posted, is calculated from temperature and rainfall. And droughts like the current one haven't happened in over 1,200 years. So, NOT often. As to Las Vegas and the drought, we most certainly do hear concerns expressed.

Region in jeopardy How we might beat Western drought - Las Vegas Sun News

Feds project Lake Mead below drought trigger point in 2017 - Las Vegas Sun News

Drought Information Statement Products for Las Vegas NV

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/07/18/...g-las-vegas-take-extreme-measures-258092.html

As Lake Mead Levels Drop The West Braces For Bigger Drought Impact NPR

and so forth

What "real renewable energy" do you believe "people in power" are "squashing"? The government has provided subsidies and tax breaks for wind, solar PV, solar thermal and other alternative technologies. Please clarify.

Irrigating the desert is not a viable solution to global warming - certainly not by itself. Look at this graph of CO2 resulting from the deforestation just in the Amazon basin: In 2001, the loss of 1.6 million hectares (~4 million acres) added, in effect, 600 million tonnes of CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere. Human combustion of fossil fuel in that same year, added about 25 billion tons. The deforestation of the Amazon was responsible for about 2.4% of added CO2. If you think you can irrigate and plant an area of desert equal to 42 times the area lost in the Amazon, more power to you.

Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post. Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations. If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.

And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions, much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon...or any aerobic being for that matter. And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.

Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years, And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.

So I ask what is the real way we combat climate change. We're already overpopulated would you not agree?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Animal the government got us to space, paved the highways and created the early internet.

The government created rockets that made satellites possible
The government built dams
The government has regulated our economy that made the middle class possible.

Now go back to Africa you fucking savage.

 

[flacaltenn]

Data from NOAA, published by Scientific American

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Gee Crickham.. That doesnt look ANYTHING like the top 10 Global temperature records from either Satellite or surface showing the disputed PAUSE... Matter of fact -- I'll wager it's Scientific American bending over to have their principles fucked....

Wanna Bet?? Oh -- forgot.. You can't read or interpret graphs.. No wonder you don't question why this chart doesn't look like the other satellite or ground temp charts..

Hey Bullwinkly...

1) When you plot 149 years in 4 inches -- How much space is there on that to show the 15 year PAUSE?
About 6th grade math --- but I think you could handle it.. Clue -- answer is in units INCHES..

2) When the scientific discussion is of a period that concerns only the past 30 years or so -- what horizontal range should you use on the CHART???

Thanks man -- PERFECT FUCKING EXAMPLE of the dishonesty and the loss of integrity from people even at Scientific American. Promoting SOLID propaganda in lieu of any intellectual scientific discussion...

I REALLY REALLY thank you for calling this to our attention..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Data from NOAA, published by Scientific American

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Just ignore the fact they DO NOT give the raw data and "adjust" it how ever they feel before releasing it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Also ignores the fact that a paper was just published that says in 2030 we start a mini Ice Age due to inactivity of the Sun.

 

[sakinago]

Animal the government got us to space, paved the highways and created the early internet.

The government created rockets that made satellites possible
The government built dams
The government has regulated our economy that made the middle class possible.

Now go back to Africa you fucking savage.

Actually Von Braun got us...the US to space (Russians did it first, same with satellites), and Germany brought us the highway, dams according to your friends are harmful to the environment, and the current government is regulating the economy pretty heavily bc we are too stupid, but yet the rich keep getting richer under this regime? And the middle class didn't really exist like it has for the past century until free market economics were introduced (meaning govt stays out of it). Which that way of thinking has been dying slowly and 96 million Americans have dropped out of the work force, not retired or decided to stay home with kids, but dropped out. But hey bend some numbers around, don't include that whole 96 million statistic and you got only a 5% unemployment rate. I just can't for the life of me figure out why the middle class has been shrinking, Obama and bush both love us in the middle and the little guy. I am a little guy, I make under 50,000, but my taxes keep going up, and my health care plan is don't get sick you can't afford it. It use to be get sick and pay a little, now it's pay the same a month, and never get sick or injured or your screwed. Not so bad considering everyone else

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Data from NOAA, published by Scientific American

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Lol@ "the latest corrected analysis"

It's so fucking funny!

They just don't care about altering the data to fit their stupid, failed theory.

Actually, what appears to be happening is that you don't want to see better data, more accurate data - you only want to see data that supports your prejudices.

Lolz

Riiiiiight. You're adjusting the data.

So what's the number? How much will the oceans cool for every 10ppm reduction in CO2

What a clown you are

 

[CrusaderFrank]

these Liberal/commie so called (scientist) on the governments payrolls around the world. their gig is all about CONTROL and not of the freaking earths climate. because they can't do a damn thing about it: UNLESS it HURTS YOU and you living/lifestyle . wake up

If you don't believe in government, science or the funding of basic things like infrastructure...Well, Somalia maybe the place for you....

Not saying that Obama hasn't set back this country decades in the mid term.

The best objective science funded by government will always be found in DARPA. Oh and sociology, psychology, and anthropology, they got a wealth of data to go off of with the NSA and how to say and tweak things a certain way to get the population to go along with what they want. But I think science gets a long just fine... Actually better when a government isn't holding a stick and carrot. Didn't see tesla or Edison being told where to go by the stick and carrot. Don't see much stick and carrot in Silicon Valley... Although that's getting worse. Only time the Stick and carrot was good, was when Kennedy told NASA their goal was the moon, and you have this much time... But NASA was a govt program. How much did the govt help in developing FM radio...or the telephone, I seem to remember those techs being nothing but held back by the govt. How long was gps out for until the govt decided to let the surfs use it? How slow is the internet after all these years with absence of govt regulation. Ask Eric Schmidt how long have we had the tech for the driverless car, and why we haven't made it sooner

Great so we can zero out all funding for Climate change

Why? You don't think we should understand our planets climates? I think we should fund science more as we learn more and we're better off doing so. I hate you loserterians as you don't believe in science or explorations.

Do us a favor, hop up and down on the planet to move it further from the Sun

How much will the oceans cool for each 10PPM reduction in CO2?

Answer with a number.

I don't know as I am NOT a climate scientist. With more research maybe one of those can find your answer...Science is always evolving...

Of course you would defund it and want it to stop.

I want a number. Should be simple enough but it feels like asking Bernie Madoff for his numbers

You won't get those numbers defunding climate science. You stupid piece of shit.

We're funding it and we're not getting the numbers. Seems to me the money must be going into public outreach because it sure as fuck doesn't go into a lab.

I'd zero out all this climate "research"

 

[jon_berzerk]

Data from NOAA, published by Scientific American

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Lol@ "the latest corrected analysis"

It's so fucking funny!

They just don't care about altering the data to fit their stupid, failed theory.

Actually, what appears to be happening is that you don't want to see better data, more accurate data - you only want to see data that supports your prejudices.

Lolz

Riiiiiight. You're adjusting the data.

So what's the number? How much will the oceans cool for every 10ppm reduction in CO2

What a clown you are

3

it takes 3 licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop

always the latest corrected data --LOL

 

[Crick]

Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.

What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?

Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.

You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.

If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.

You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.

Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.

Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.

Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.

And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions

It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.

much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.

I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.

..or any aerobic being for that matter.

Eh? Aerobic being?

And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.

The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.

Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years

The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.

And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.

China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.

Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.

 

[Crick]

We're funding it and we're not getting the numbers. Seems to me the money must be going into public outreach because it sure as fuck doesn't go into a lab.

I'd zero out all this climate "research"

Really? Who'd a thunk it?

 

[sakinago]

Data from NOAA, published by Scientific American

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Lol@ "the latest corrected analysis"

It's so fucking funny!

They just don't care about altering the data to fit their stupid, failed theory.

Actually, what appears to be happening is that you don't want to see better data, more accurate data - you only want to see data that supports your prejudices.

Lolz

Riiiiiight. You're adjusting the data.

So what's the number? How much will the oceans cool for every 10ppm reduction in CO2

What a clown you are

Don't know who your responding to crusader frank but I want to know the number, 10 ppm over how long and I assume in Celsius?

 

[sakinago]

Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.

What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?

Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.

You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.

If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.

You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.

Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.

Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.

Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.

And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions

It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.

much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.

I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.

..or any aerobic being for that matter.

Eh? Aerobic being?

And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.

The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.

Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years

The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.

And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.

China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.

Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.

Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).

And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.

Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Data from NOAA, published by Scientific American

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Lol@ "the latest corrected analysis"

It's so fucking funny!

They just don't care about altering the data to fit their stupid, failed theory.

Actually, what appears to be happening is that you don't want to see better data, more accurate data - you only want to see data that supports your prejudices.

Lolz

Riiiiiight. You're adjusting the data.

So what's the number? How much will the oceans cool for every 10ppm reduction in CO2

What a clown you are

Don't know who your responding to crusader frank but I want to know the number, 10 ppm over how long and I assume in Celsius?

The AGWCult is long on insults and short on Experiments, they will never provide an answer

 

[ScienceRocks]

Data from NOAA, published by Scientific American

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Lol@ "the latest corrected analysis"

It's so fucking funny!

They just don't care about altering the data to fit their stupid, failed theory.

Actually, what appears to be happening is that you don't want to see better data, more accurate data - you only want to see data that supports your prejudices.

Lolz

Riiiiiight. You're adjusting the data.

So what's the number? How much will the oceans cool for every 10ppm reduction in CO2

What a clown you are

Don't know who your responding to crusader frank but I want to know the number, 10 ppm over how long and I assume in Celsius?

The AGWCult is long on insults and short on Experiments, they will never provide an answer

It is you that demands the defunding of all of our science insitutions that would do such science. The honest truth at least from where I sit is I don't have the numbers for 10 or 100 ppm increase in co2.

I am sure that those increases do in fact cause a increase in the greenhouse.

You should want more MONEY for the noaa, nasa and our institutions if you care about knowing those exact numbers.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Hydrogen car, already stated that In an earlier post.

What do you mean by "hydrogen car"?

Nuclear energy production that's not 50 years old also stated earlier. Both of which being squashed by this and previous administrations.

You've picked the wrong actors. It is not the administrations that have stopped nuclear energy development - it is the American people - people across the whole planet actually.

If you can think of emissions coming from either please let me know. Good luck. Well the problem with nuclear is what do we do with waste...I say send it into space. And I guess we are so dumb that no one can figure out how to make a fuel cell/battery system for solar/wind/thermal power, let alone kinetic ways of storing and producing energy? Solar energy has been only 5 years away from a breakthrough for the last 20 years. Oh and if you want to go off the grid for real with your own well and solar panels, guess what, you're not allowed, no you have to be plugged in to our grid even though you don't need it, we need to know what your doing.

You're rambling. Waste is a problem but sending it into space is not a solution. The cost is enormous and you run the risk of a crash with the same effect as a large scale dirty bomb.

Fuel cells are not energy storage devices.

Batteries for solar and wind is a good idea and there has been a great deal of progress lately on Pullman vanadium salt flow batteries. They have a unit in Washington state that has a 3.2 MW capacity. The technology is relatively simple and the design is child's play to scale upwards.

Solar PV is very close (if not beyond) the cost of fossil fuel-sourced electricity.

And it's undeniable that irrigating desert land and planting trees/crops is a good option for reducing carbon emissions

It's an option, but it is not a good one. You cannot soak up enough CO2 to have any noticeable effect. It would be far more effective to put in alternative technologies in the power and transportation sectors.

much better than passing laws and taxes on people using carbon.

I disagree. Deforestation is a contributing cause of AGW, but it is not the primary cause. You could reforest the entire planet - restore every bush, tree and blade of grass eliminated since the invention of the steam engine, but CO2 in the atmosphere would still increase. You have to stop the combustion of fossil fuels.

..or any aerobic being for that matter.

Eh? Aerobic being?

And yes lots of trees are being cut down, and they take many years to grow, let's start now. If government was really concerned about climate changed as they say they are, this would be happening.

The government does practice reforestation. And preservation. But if you actually believe they could cure global warming in such a manner, you need to bone up on more than a few topics. This line of reasoning is more than a little childish.

Also if the government really was concerned, than why did we make "green" deals with china and Mexico saying they can build as many dirty coal plants as they want for 16 years

The United States has no authority to tell Mexico, China or any other nation what they may and may not due. I would guess you are referring to trade negotiations in which we have told them that we will not continue to trade with them unless they work to reduced their emissions. Recent agreements of that sort are more emission-restrictive than former arrangements, so if you're looking for government action as evidence that global warming is real, you've got it.

And well consistently cut down our clean coal plants. But then they have to freeze it after that, right? China listens to us and will honor a 16 year old deal in the future, right. While they make something like 3 new dirty coal plants a week, so much that they have to make jumbotrons in their cities showing the sunrise in the morning because the smog blocks out the sun.

China is converting to alternative energy sources faster - and now has more alternative energy capacity - than any other planet on Earth. They do possess a very large coal infrastructure and are an enormous emitter, but they ARE working on it.

Looking for government action as evidence that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is or is not real is just silly. A much better idea is to look at the science. The science says that the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions and deforestation. This problem will not be solved by irrigating the world's deserts.

Hydrogen car.. A car run off of hydrogen gas, almost just as efficient as fossil fuel run cars. A car that was made and got 300 miles per tank as opposed to 320 or so as the average fossil fuel car we see today. That being a smaller tank. Either way still zero emissions, and a complete and cheap way to get the US energy independent. And if you think china is moving towards a green economy, than me and al gore have a bridge to sell to you (they are making 3 dirty coal plants in a week).

And a majority of AGW, is cause by respiration of aerobic life forms. Unless you disagree with your scientist who say that 40% of out carbon emissions come from cattle alone, which is why the need for the tax on how many cattle a rancher owns...unless they're with big Agra... Don't tax them they're big campaign contributors.

Which gets to my next question how much is the earth overpopulated. The first letter in AGW is anthropomorphic, so how much is caused by humans and how much do we need to get rid of?

i like hydrogen

do you mean hydrogen combustion engine

or hydrogen/electric fuel cell

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Lol@ "the latest corrected analysis"

It's so fucking funny!

They just don't care about altering the data to fit their stupid, failed theory.

Actually, what appears to be happening is that you don't want to see better data, more accurate data - you only want to see data that supports your prejudices.

Lolz

Riiiiiight. You're adjusting the data.

So what's the number? How much will the oceans cool for every 10ppm reduction in CO2

What a clown you are

Don't know who your responding to crusader frank but I want to know the number, 10 ppm over how long and I assume in Celsius?

The AGWCult is long on insults and short on Experiments, they will never provide an answer

It is you that wants to defund all of our science insitutions that would do such science. The honest truth at least from where I sit is I don't have the numbers for 10 or 100 ppm increase in co2.

I am sure that those increases do in fact cause a increase in the greenhouse.

You should want more MONEY for the noaa, nasa and our institutions if you care about knowing those exact numbers.

You don't have numbers because a wisp of CO2 has no measurable impact on temperature

Oh. Please go fuck yourself too while you're at it

 

[sakinago]

Data from NOAA, published by Scientific American

No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American

Lol@ "the latest corrected analysis"

It's so fucking funny!

They just don't care about altering the data to fit their stupid, failed theory.

Actually, what appears to be happening is that you don't want to see better data, more accurate data - you only want to see data that supports your prejudices.

Lolz

Riiiiiight. You're adjusting the data.

So what's the number? How much will the oceans cool for every 10ppm reduction in CO2

What a clown you are

Don't know who your responding to crusader frank but I want to know the number, 10 ppm over how long and I assume in Celsius?

The AGWCult is long on insults and short on Experiments, they will never provide an answer

This is true crusader frank. They will deny their own version of science until it matches up with where the current Overton window is located.

Someone who agrees with this thread topic please tell me how many A's of AGW need to be eliminated to reverse climate change or whatever you want to call it currently