Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Don't ya know we are warming because they say so? Come on, where have you been? 2012 England had record snows and cold and this year North America is having record snows an cold. Yet we're warming up!What happened to "The Pacific Ocean ate all the global warming"?
What thousands? Name a few.No, it cannot and, so, it is not. The thousands of PhDs working on this issue are not stupid. You are not exceptionally smart. You say it could be the sun. They - in their thousands - say it could not. Guess who is most likely to be right.
PS: Graph reading 1.0: the increase is NOT the same.
Again no evidence to support that claim. Geez. IPCC is not a reliable source and yet even they admit to the haitus. Quit denying the facts.Really? Combustion produces no heat? Nuclear fission produces no heat? I'll try to remember that.
However, your point is moot. We aren't talking about the creation of heat. We're talking about the average temperature of the planet Earth. That value is increasing and it is doing so because of increasing levels of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Those levels are increasing because of human emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels and the loss of sinks from deforestation. The forcing factor due to fluctuations in solar output has been trivial for centuries.
Man-made climate change, warming, whatever-you-want-to-call-it has been around for sometime if you believe stories like this:
"By using data from tree rings of Siberian pines, researchers found an unusually warm and wet period between A.D. 1211 and 1225, corresponding with Genghis Khan's horse-driven invasion."
Warm, Wet Climate Likely Helped Genghis Khan Conquer the World | LiveScience
.
wow, Scientists destroyed CO2 eating, 2,000 year old trees to invent a theory of how CO2 is causing the earth to warm?
wow!coal-fired electric generating plants can be constructed to best-mitigation standards.
what "best mitigation standards"? Show us proof that a coal fired plant can be built with zero ghg output.
fuck... That... Mother... Fucker.
your past comments would indicate that you likely have a poor opinion of president obama that has nothing to do with his actions or goals if office, his political positions or his record. Your past comments would indicate that any criticism you voice towards the president has a great deal more to do with the color of his skin than anything else. If i were you, i'd simply stop making them as everyone here simply assumes they are the product of your bigotry.
And i still want to see the proof.
there are precisely zero energy-generation systems that have zero ghg output. You know this. Don't be so ignorant.
I'm far from bigoted, yet nearer to the notion of reality than are you or any other of your liberal ilk.
I'd like proof that so-called "renewable" and "green" energy initiatives have zero ghg output.
Put out, or shut up.
Man-made climate change, warming, whatever-you-want-to-call-it has been around for sometime if you believe stories like this:
"By using data from tree rings of Siberian pines, researchers found an unusually warm and wet period between A.D. 1211 and 1225, corresponding with Genghis Khan's horse-driven invasion."
Warm, Wet Climate Likely Helped Genghis Khan Conquer the World | LiveScience
.
Don't ya know we are warming because they say so? Come on, where have you been? 2012 England had record snows and cold and this year North America is having record snows an cold. Yet we're warming up!What happened to "The Pacific Ocean ate all the global warming"?
"The Paradoxical Effect" explains everything better than anything and it is so entirely correct that nobody can ever disprove it.
That's the hallmark of AGW Faither "good" science.
"The Paradoxical Effect" explains everything better than anything and it is so entirely correct that nobody can ever disprove it.
That's the hallmark of AGW Faither "good" science.
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo...
Look, I know your insane political cult fed you that crazy story, and that your BS detector is broken, meaning you fell hard for it. You just need to understand that out in the real world, AGW science has been making falsifiable predictions for decades now. And the predictions all end getting confirmed, not falsified. That's because it's real science.
In direct contrast, your political cult won't even make any predictions. That's because they're just babbling cult pseudoscience.
Your cult's constant conspiracy theories are also a big giveaway. A normal person would be thinking "Hmm ... maybe the whole world isn't mistaken ... maybe it's me." Cultists, however, believe their cult to be incapable of error, and so if the world disagrees, it means the entire world must be all wrong and deliberately plotting against the cult.
What thousands? Name a few.No, it cannot and, so, it is not. The thousands of PhDs working on this issue are not stupid. You are not exceptionally smart. You say it could be the sun. They - in their thousands - say it could not. Guess who is most likely to be right.
PS: Graph reading 1.0: the increase is NOT the same.
"The Paradoxical Effect" explains everything better than anything and it is so entirely correct that nobody can ever disprove it.
That's the hallmark of AGW Faither "good" science.
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo...
Look, I know your insane political cult fed you that crazy story, and that your BS detector is broken, meaning you fell hard for it. You just need to understand that out in the real world, AGW science has been making falsifiable predictions for decades now. And the predictions all end getting confirmed, not falsified. That's because it's real science.
In direct contrast, your political cult won't even make any predictions. That's because they're just babbling cult pseudoscience.
Your cult's constant conspiracy theories are also a big giveaway. A normal person would be thinking "Hmm ... maybe the whole world isn't mistaken ... maybe it's me." Cultists, however, believe their cult to be incapable of error, and so if the world disagrees, it means the entire world must be all wrong and deliberately plotting against the cult.
The pseudo-scientists are you asshat! You clowns haven't made a measurable prediction in years! You are the very embodiment of conmen!No, it cannot and, so, it is not. The thousands of PhDs working on this issue are not stupid. You are not exceptionally smart. You say it could be the sun. They - in their thousands - say it could not. Guess who is most likely to be right.
PS: Graph reading 1.0: the increase is NOT the same.
Those brilliant M'F'ers who are just now discovering thermal equilibrium delays of up to 100 years say that all that additional solar influx can't be SIGNIFICANT??
No -- I'm sure you were mislead by all those FAULTY IPCC gimmicks used to HIDE what TSI from the sun has done to the climate in the past 300 years.. Because you cannot say given the recent "discoveries" about the pause -- that the SUN cannot be a factor.. It is at a relative 200 year HIGH in insolation.. And just because you've been brainwashed to expect that the warming curve and the forcing curve should be IDENTICAL --- There's not a probability of the EVER BEING A REQUIREMENT foir the complex climate system.
Your credibility as an observer is also questionable. Cause it's YOU that can't read graph Chief.. The new baseline is LOWER for the Maunder Min.. But the TOP END is a smidge HIGHER and closer to 1362.0 ---- You're busted again.. And Again.. And Again....
Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for recent changes observed in the Earth's climate. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly on the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the troposphere have become available."
The three dominant factors affecting the Earth's temperature are the dramatically increased levels of greenhouse gases, the changes to the surface from deforestation and melting snow and ice, and the presence of aerosols from various natural and synthetic (ie, anthropogenic) sources.
ibid
"Multiple lines of evidence support attribution of recent climate change to human activities:[4]
o A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
o Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
o Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
o Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]"
Reference 4 is US EPA, OAR, Climate Change Division (December 2009), Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: Climate Change: US EPA (PDF), Press release: EPA's Final Endangerment Finding: Climate Change Facts. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171.
Here's an interesting graphic. This is the output of a COMPUTER MODEL (ALERT, all you deniers get your hackles up). The model summed the noted forcing factors (solar, volcanic, sulfates, ozone and greenhouse gases) to come up with a total forcing. This is shown against the observed temperature trend (note the decent fit those of you that keep screaming the models don't work).
Numerous lines of evidence connect these factors to human activities and these factors to the observed temperature increases. It may be difficult to proceed beyond this point, however, as unlike the deniers here, all the reasonable, objective articles on this topic assume that global warming has been taking place and that the Greenhouse Effect is real. Lacking agreement on those points from a number of the folks around here is quite a wrench in the works. However, we (the folks who accept mainstream science) have spent far more than enough time attempting to convince the deniers here of the reality of these two points. I intend to proceed as if the audience here had reasonable intelligence and will treat global warming and the Greenhouse Effect as established facts, whether or not the audience concurs. I will do my best not to get drawn off debating whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow.
Human activity: the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation are the primary cause of the global warming we have experienced over the last 150 years. That warming presents a real threat to the human species.
Human activity: the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation are the primary cause of the global warming we have experienced over the last 150 years. That warming presents a real threat to the human species.
No, it cannot and, so, it is not. The thousands of PhDs working on this issue are not stupid. You are not exceptionally smart. You say it could be the sun. They - in their thousands - say it could not. Guess who is most likely to be right.
PS: Graph reading 1.0: the increase is NOT the same.
Those brilliant M'F'ers who are just now discovering thermal equilibrium delays of up to 100 years say that all that additional solar influx can't be SIGNIFICANT??
No -- I'm sure you were mislead by all those FAULTY IPCC gimmicks used to HIDE what TSI from the sun has done to the climate in the past 300 years.. Because you cannot say given the recent "discoveries" about the pause -- that the SUN cannot be a factor.. It is at a relative 200 year HIGH in insolation.. And just because you've been brainwashed to expect that the warming curve and the forcing curve should be IDENTICAL --- There's not a probability of the EVER BEING A REQUIREMENT foir the complex climate system.
Your credibility as an observer is also questionable. Cause it's YOU that can't read graph Chief.. The new baseline is LOWER for the Maunder Min.. But the TOP END is a smidge HIGHER and closer to 1362.0 ---- You're busted again.. And Again.. And Again....
I thought you knew this stuff. The only thing that matters on those graphs is the relative increase. The corrected graph has roughly one third the increase your antique displays.
And the climate scientists of the world forgot more climate science while they were standing on their heads than you have ever known. You have no right to call them motherfuckers. You don't know them or anything about them. Honestly, I find your badmouthing them, here, behind their backs, more than a little cowardly.
