Global Warming

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Viktor, Sep 20, 2018.

  1. Viktor
    Offline

    Viktor VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    270
    Thanks Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +170
    Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

    Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

    Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

    This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
    by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.
     
    • Winner Winner x 6
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Pete7469
    Offline

    Pete7469 BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Messages:
    17,088
    Thanks Received:
    3,578
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    The Real World
    Ratings:
    +20,437
    All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

    So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

    If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


    .
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. forkup
    Offline

    forkup Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,420
    Thanks Received:
    437
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,577
    Sure, the thing is most of these events can be investigated and usually a cause or causes, since it's seldom a single thing that influences a change in climate, can be determined. Only the current determination by scientist isn't accepted by the politicians ( not scientists )in a single country. Even your article has this paragraph.
    However, Mankind's activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the "Urban Heat Island Effect" are likely creating more harmful pollution. Yes, we believe we should be "going green" whenever and wherever possible.
    So can I ask why you accept this graphical representation, but not one of their conclusions? Why you would accept the determination of science of previous climate trends, but not the current one?
    At best you have provided SOME doubt about the cause of global warming.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
  4. forkup
    Offline

    forkup Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,420
    Thanks Received:
    437
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,577
    3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
     
  5. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    31,187
    Thanks Received:
    3,577
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +11,868
    CO2 causation is a theory.

    And anyway......the cost of being able to possibly combat it is not at all feasible. Only an idiot would disagree......the same idiot doesn't think costs matter when this kind of thing is discussed.

    And we know nobody is interested at all in opening up their wallet based upon some hail Mary theory.......the lack of climate change action is beyond laughable. The science isn't mattering.

    Indeed........when people see elephants and giraffes standing around in a roaring snowstorm in the middle of Africa in August, freezing their balls off, they aren't going to have climate change action on top of their list of things to do!!:deal::cul2::cul2:
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
  6. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,235
    Thanks Received:
    374
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +1,173
    3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
    You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
    Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
    3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. miketx
    Offline

    miketx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    51,273
    Thanks Received:
    5,726
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Ratings:
    +58,254
    How did they measure temperature in 2500 BC and what video equipment did they use to record it on for us?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,235
    Thanks Received:
    374
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +1,173
    For that you need a Michael Mann. He does not need a highly accurate thermometer to tell you within 1/10 of a degree accuracy what the temperature was....but is unwilling to show the raw data.
    This leaves the rest of the scientists wondering how he does that:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    Apparently he can measure tree rings within fractions of a millimeter accuracy, like in 0.1 mm increments which is 4/1000 of an inch. It`s impossible to machine wood to within 4 thou. You can do it with metal on a precision lathe but not with wood because 1 single hardwood fiber is 10 times thicker than a "Michael Mann" temperature increment:
    [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Viktor
    Offline

    Viktor VIP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    270
    Thanks Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +170

    From a Nobel Laureate in Physics: "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"


     
  10. miketx
    Offline

    miketx Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Messages:
    51,273
    Thanks Received:
    5,726
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Ratings:
    +58,254
    For that you need a time machine. There is no way no how ever, that you can prove what the weather was 5000 years ago. Ever. All the squiggly lines and computers don't mean shit!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page