"Global warming is real - it is man-made"

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Global warming is real - it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world." - who said it?


Bjørn Lomborg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[youtube]YfVY5om9HtA[/youtube]

It's simply amazing what goes over the heads of certain members here. Simply amazing.

 

[westwall]

Wow it's a few degrees hotter, lets make a big deal over it

It's a might BIG DEAL to the plants we depend on, Majin.

A couple degrees difference turnss most of the Americann Heartlands farms from arible land into deserts.

That may not seem like a big deal to you, but for those of us who like the eat?

Yeah, that is a pretty big deal.

If that is so why is Brazil such a great producer of food? It has an average temperature about 6 degrees warmer than the US.

 

[antagon]

this will ride on the advancements in irrigation since the dustbowl to a greater extent than on the difference in temperatures.

 

[Old Rocks]

You cannot irrigate if you have no water. And water at the wrong time is just as destructive to crops as no water.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And Manamde Global Warming, er, Climatic Change, er Climatic Disaster, er Great Climactic Googly Moogly causes both more water and less water, amiright?

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank, old boy, you are more right than you know. It was demonstrated this summer when Russia lost 40% of it's grain crop to heat and drougth, while at the same time, Pakistan lost nearly the whole of it's agriculture to flooding.

 

[westwall]

Frank, old boy, you are more right than you know. It was demonstrated this summer when Russia lost 40% of it's grain crop to heat and drougth, while at the same time, Pakistan lost nearly the whole of it's agriculture to flooding.

And, according to your own side, were in no way related to GW. Not one iota.

 

[peach174]

It's natural and we need to focus on adapting to it.
We can't control the sun spots
We can't control the magnatic poles that is starting to shift
We can't control the volcanos (by the way, puts out more than anything mankind can put out. How you gona put filters on those volcanos?)
It's mother earth doing what she has always done and guess what? Mankind is still around.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank, old boy, you are more right than you know. It was demonstrated this summer when Russia lost 40% of it's grain crop to heat and drougth, while at the same time, Pakistan lost nearly the whole of it's agriculture to flooding.

And, according to your own side, were in no way related to GW. Not one iota.

There is no way to state that one analomy is directly connected to the warming. However, when you have the amount of analomies that we saw in 2010, it is a strong indication that we are seeing a change. The strong blocking high that created the situation in Russia was an analomy, just as the convergance of storms that flooded much of Tennessee.

A couple more years of major analomies that directly affect agriculture, and we are going to have some real problems feeding the present population.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's natural and we need to focus on adapting to it.
We can't control the sun spots
We can't control the magnatic poles that is starting to shift
We can't control the volcanos (by the way, puts out more than anything mankind can put out. How you gona put filters on those volcanos?)
It's mother earth doing what she has always done and guess what? Mankind is still around.

The sunspots have been at the lowest level in nearly a hundred years for the last decade.

The strength of the magnetic poles have not been shown to have any affect on climate.

The volcanos do not put out even 100th the GHGs that mankind put out. USGS figures.

The present warming has little to do with Mother Earth. It is the basic physics of the atmosphere. Add GHGs, and the earth warms.

Now I can back each of my assertations up from scientific sources. Can you back up even one of yours?

 

[Old Rocks]

It was done by Tyndall in 1858, silly ass.

more genuinely, that was the discovery of the greenhouse effect altogether. such a study as frank challenges has not been conducted successfully in a lab or on a computer, despite their modeling flaws... not one which can tie a significant temp change analogous to earth with as little as 200-300PPM additional CO2.

this is a problem with the very basis of CO2 causation.

Complete and total bullshit.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Real science from the American Institute of Physics.

 

[peach174]

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects
here is one for you.
Where is your proof that man can put out more?
Nature has always been more powerful than mankind.

 

[westwall]

Frank, old boy, you are more right than you know. It was demonstrated this summer when Russia lost 40% of it's grain crop to heat and drougth, while at the same time, Pakistan lost nearly the whole of it's agriculture to flooding.

And, according to your own side, were in no way related to GW. Not one iota.

There is no way to state that one analomy is directly connected to the warming. However, when you have the amount of analomies that we saw in 2010, it is a strong indication that we are seeing a change. The strong blocking high that created the situation in Russia was an analomy, just as the convergance of storms that flooded much of Tennessee.

A couple more years of major analomies that directly affect agriculture, and we are going to have some real problems feeding the present population.

Here is one of the better reviews of the heat wave. It appears they disagree with you. We can feed any number of people no matter how many times you Chicken Little types cry about the next impending disaster or tipping point. The single biggest cause of famine for the last few decades has been totalitarian governments.

I challenge you to do google searches for any year you choose, find a single year when there wasn't a "weather event", I dare you!

 

[westwall]

It's natural and we need to focus on adapting to it.
We can't control the sun spots
We can't control the magnatic poles that is starting to shift
We can't control the volcanos (by the way, puts out more than anything mankind can put out. How you gona put filters on those volcanos?)
It's mother earth doing what she has always done and guess what? Mankind is still around.

The sunspots have been at the lowest level in nearly a hundred years for the last decade.

The strength of the magnetic poles have not been shown to have any affect on climate.

The volcanos do not put out even 100th the GHGs that mankind put out. USGS figures.

The present warming has little to do with Mother Earth. It is the basic physics of the atmosphere. Add GHGs, and the earth warms.

Now I can back each of my assertations up from scientific sources. Can you back up even one of yours?

No you can't. Antagon presented a very simple to follow attack on CO2 GW theory and backed it up with non biased scientific sources which you have been unable to refute.

 

[westwall]

It was done by Tyndall in 1858, silly ass.

more genuinely, that was the discovery of the greenhouse effect altogether. such a study as frank challenges has not been conducted successfully in a lab or on a computer, despite their modeling flaws... not one which can tie a significant temp change analogous to earth with as little as 200-300PPM additional CO2.

this is a problem with the very basis of CO2 causation.

Complete and total bullshit.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Real science from the American Institute of Physics.

Untrue yet again olfraud. You really must try harder, that particular link has seen the end of its usefulness.

 

[antagon]

It was done by Tyndall in 1858, silly ass.

more genuinely, that was the discovery of the greenhouse effect altogether. such a study as frank challenges has not been conducted successfully in a lab or on a computer, despite their modeling flaws... not one which can tie a significant temp change analogous to earth with as little as 200-300PPM additional CO2.

this is a problem with the very basis of CO2 causation.

Complete and total bullshit.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Real science from the American Institute of Physics.

did you actually read that shit, rocks? it declares that CO2 is a feedback.

 

[asterism]

more genuinely, that was the discovery of the greenhouse effect altogether. Such a study as frank challenges has not been conducted successfully in a lab or on a computer, despite their modeling flaws... Not one which can tie a significant temp change analogous to earth with as little as 200-300ppm additional co2.

This is a problem with the very basis of co2 causation.

complete and total bullshit.

the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect

real science from the american institute of physics.

did you actually read that shit, rocks? It declares that co2 is a feedback.

ha!

 

[Old Rocks]

more genuinely, that was the discovery of the greenhouse effect altogether. such a study as frank challenges has not been conducted successfully in a lab or on a computer, despite their modeling flaws... not one which can tie a significant temp change analogous to earth with as little as 200-300PPM additional CO2.

this is a problem with the very basis of CO2 causation.

Complete and total bullshit.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Real science from the American Institute of Physics.

did you actually read that shit, rocks? it declares that CO2 is a feedback.

Antagon, reread the whole article. CO2 is a feedback to the Milankovic Cycles. The forcing of the Milankovic Cycles are really quite weak. Now, as we are burning fossil fuels, the CO2 thus generated is not a feedback, and represents a far stronger forcing in an orders of magnitude shorter time period than the Milankovic Cycles.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It was done by Tyndall in 1858, silly ass.

more genuinely, that was the discovery of the greenhouse effect altogether. such a study as frank challenges has not been conducted successfully in a lab or on a computer, despite their modeling flaws... not one which can tie a significant temp change analogous to earth with as little as 200-300PPM additional CO2.

this is a problem with the very basis of CO2 causation.

Complete and total bullshit.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Real science from the American Institute of Physics.

 

[code1211]

It's natural and we need to focus on adapting to it.
We can't control the sun spots
We can't control the magnatic poles that is starting to shift
We can't control the volcanos (by the way, puts out more than anything mankind can put out. How you gona put filters on those volcanos?)
It's mother earth doing what she has always done and guess what? Mankind is still around.

The sunspots have been at the lowest level in nearly a hundred years for the last decade.

The strength of the magnetic poles have not been shown to have any affect on climate.

The volcanos do not put out even 100th the GHGs that mankind put out. USGS figures.

The present warming has little to do with Mother Earth. It is the basic physics of the atmosphere. Add GHGs, and the earth warms.

Now I can back each of my assertations up from scientific sources. Can you back up even one of yours?

TSI is hoovering at levels higher than in the lat 600 years.

The effect of the shifting magnetic pole is unknown and has been observed to be shifting over the period of warming that followed the Little ice Age. It is as reasonable to assume that the shifting magnetic pole is the cause of warming as it is to assume that CO2 is the cause.

The major impact of volcanoes on climate is cooling and there have been few volcanoes recently.

The effect of GHG's which you claim is a consistant and observable cause/effect arrangement comes and goes despite the fact that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises steadily and consistantly. Almost any other climatic influence seems to dominate the effect of CO2. Also, CO2, which is pretty well homoginized in the air has a more dramatic effect at the north Pole than at the South Pole and in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere. Does it just work better north of the equator?

All of your assertions are on their face suspect. You have yet to prove that your assertions hold water.