- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
#flatearthers please check in. NYPost editorial shits all over climate change
Posted on 9/15/14 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 9/15/14 at 1:44 pm
LINK
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to come into this thread and challenge the above must provide:
a) what the "global" temperature is supposed to be (NOT what it "should" be for humans to be comfortable, but what it actually would be in the absence of any "man contributed" CO2, and considering natural cyclical changes in "global" climate);
b) what the "global" CO2 atmospheric load is supposed to be without man's contribution (considering cyclical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations);
and,
c) whether the "global" temperature and CO2 concentrations have ever been higher than they are today.
quote:
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
Consider:
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
• Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
•Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to come into this thread and challenge the above must provide:
a) what the "global" temperature is supposed to be (NOT what it "should" be for humans to be comfortable, but what it actually would be in the absence of any "man contributed" CO2, and considering natural cyclical changes in "global" climate);
b) what the "global" CO2 atmospheric load is supposed to be without man's contribution (considering cyclical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations);
and,
c) whether the "global" temperature and CO2 concentrations have ever been higher than they are today.
This post was edited on 9/15/14 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 9/15/14 at 1:47 pm to udtiger
But....but....but.....the rocks on Earth are absorbing all the extra heat since the late 1990's.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 1:51 pm to udtiger
Posted on 9/15/14 at 1:52 pm to udtiger
Anne Romney's horse! I mean, er, hockey stick!!
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:16 pm to udtiger
quote:
what it actually would be in the absence of any CO2
Why would there be an absence of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:20 pm to Meauxjeaux
The lull is real as the data suggests. It will remain to be seen if the lull persists or if that heat is temporarily being absorbed somewhere in a heat exchange cycle like the oceans and the trend will resume at some point in the next few years.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:23 pm to BobBoucher
quote:And the rocks. Don't forget the rocks.....
a heat exchange cycle like the oceans
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:25 pm to Bmath
quote:
Why would there be an absence of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:27 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
lull
interesting word for climate data that wrecks the shite out of a theory for which certain elements are demanding a fundamental alteration of the world's economy and standard of living.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:28 pm to udtiger
quote:
#flatearthers please check in.
#in
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:31 pm to udtiger
quote:
in the absence of any "man contributed" CO2
So humans are no longer allowed to respire, or are we all dead at this point?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:37 pm to Bmath
quote:
So humans are no longer allowed to respire, or are we all dead at this point?
Ask the climate changers since they are the ones decrying man's "additional" contribution of CO2 as the cause.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:39 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
lull
How about this? This big arse plant knows how to make its own adjustments to maintain some type of acceptable equilibrium despite whatever we do (except all out nuclear war).
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:40 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
The lull is real as the data suggests. It will remain to be seen if the lull persists or if that heat is temporarily being absorbed somewhere in a heat exchange cycle like the oceans and the trend will resume at some point in the next few years.
So why we wait for definite proof, we need to dismantle our coal industry, handicap our economy with new restrictions and rules, and raise taxes on the use of all carbon products?
Posted on 9/15/14 at 2:59 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
The lull is real as the data suggests. It will remain to be seen if the lull persists or if that heat is temporarily being absorbed somewhere in a heat exchange cycle like the oceans and the trend will resume at some point in the next few years.
Or it is not a trend to begin with. The "lull" might be permanent, it might be at the end of the cycle and now a growing cool cycle will happen.
Whatever man's influence on climate, we are about 0.000000000001% of what that big ol' orange ball in the sky can do.
One good burp from Mr. Sunshine and we can release all the greenhouse gasses we want and it won't matter.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:03 pm to udtiger
quote:
Ask the climate changers since they are the ones decrying man's "additional" contribution of CO2 as the cause.
Their position is that CO2 emissions have increased at a very rapid rate. They are not denying the cyclical nature of climate change, only that they interpret the data to show that the climate has recently shifted at an unnatural rate. They correlate the rapid increase in CO2 from various anthropogenic sources to a seemingly unnatural shift in climate patterns.
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:08 pm to Bmath
quote:
Their position is that CO2 emissions have increased at a very rapid rate. They are not denying the cyclical nature of climate change, only that they interpret the data to show that the climate has recently shifted at an unnatural rate. They correlate the rapid increase in CO2 from various anthropogenic sources to a seemingly unnatural shift in climate patterns.
Then answer the questions...
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:15 pm to udtiger
Sarah Palin, fox news, tea party
Posted on 9/15/14 at 3:18 pm to udtiger
Do you read anything but tabloids?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News