Make Up Yer Minds, You Warmists

[syrenn]

Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot


Get a life people, its the natural cycle of the earth.

And the earth doesn't give a shit about us.

You sure? What happens, if GHGs keep going up? How is that natural? Maybe the earth doesn't give a shit about us, so what? That's ABSOLUTELY NOargument against the possibility of AGW. It's just more sloppy thinking from the deniers, because the real science and logic has passed them by leaving them with parroting whatever they hear that fits their bias.

Deep core samples. Try learning about them. The GHG's have been going up and down since the beginning of time. I have no reason to believe the earths natural process will change now.

And before you get your panties in a bunch and start screaming its MAN who is making the GHG's elevate, that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the earth. It has happened in the past, it will happen now, and it will happen in the future. The earth has been in the warm phase, a phase where it is very good for humans, it is time to change one way or the other, cold or hot. Either way...

Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot

 

[syrenn]

How is that natural?

You're shitting me, right? You truely believe nature doesn't outproduce man by a factor of 4000 to 1 or more?

Been happening for millyuns and billyuns of years... Damn those Pleistocean SUVs!

Hmm, they be blaming Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Can someone tell me exactly what percentage of the warming over the last 100 years was caused by man and what was natural?

Until you can I suggest you stop being a Chicken Little.

 

[syrenn]

Can someone tell me exactly what percentage of the warming over the last 100 years was caused by man and what was natural?

Until you can I suggest you stop being a Chicken Little.

Thats just it, they cant.

 

[Oddball]

Can someone tell me exactly what percentage of the warming over the last 100 years was caused by man and what was natural?

Until you can I suggest you stop being a Chicken Little.

Thats just it, they cant.

Can't be quantified, can't be falsified, can't be reproduced on demand.

Yet, somehow or another, the warmists claim that science is on their side?

 

[konradv]

You're shitting me, right? You truely believe nature doesn't outproduce man by a factor of 4000 to 1 or more?

Been happening for millyuns and billyuns of years... Damn those Pleistocean SUVs!

No we're not shitting you. If you did a little research, you wouldn't look so foolish considering that man puts more CO2 in the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

And yet with all that production, CO2 is still only 0.0387% of the atmosphere by volume.

Irrelevant, Dave. What's important is how high it's going over historical averages. It's a well known fact that the world would be a lot colder, if CO2 wasn't in the atmosphere. What's your mental hang up over the the logical progression of: more CO2, more trapped energy, more heat?

 

[daveman]

No we're not shitting you. If you did a little research, you wouldn't look so foolish considering that man puts more CO2 in the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

And yet with all that production, CO2 is still only 0.0387% of the atmosphere by volume.

Irrelevant, Dave. What's important is how high it's going over historical averages. It's a well known fact that the world would be a lot colder, if CO2 wasn't in the atmosphere. What's your mental hang up over the the logical progression of: more CO2, more trapped energy, more heat?

Because climate is far, far more complex than just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Methane and water vapor have greater greenhouse effects. Yet the AGW cult focuses only on CO2.

And why is that?

Because CO2 can be regulated by the government.

When you stop proposing political and economic "solutions" to AGW, then you might be taken seriously. Until then, AGW is rightly seen as a vehicle for greater government control over individual lives and a means for enriching a handful of carbon traders.

 

[syrenn]

No we're not shitting you. If you did a little research, you wouldn't look so foolish considering that man puts more CO2 in the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

And yet with all that production, CO2 is still only 0.0387% of the atmosphere by volume.

Irrelevant, Dave. What's important is how high it's going over historical averages. It's a well known fact that the world would be a lot colder, if CO2 wasn't in the atmosphere. What's your mental hang up over the the logical progression of: more CO2, more trapped energy, more heat?

Really?

Historical averages?

Earths historical averages or mans historical averages?

Again deep core samples are your friend for historical averages when it comes to earth.

 

[westwall]

You sure? What happens, if GHGs keep going up? How is that natural? Maybe the earth doesn't give a shit about us, so what? That's ABSOLUTELY NOargument against the possibility of AGW. It's just more sloppy thinking from the deniers, because the real science and logic has passed them by leaving them with parroting whatever they hear that fits their bias.

Soooooo...what happened when the CO2 levels were over 1000ppm? We didn't cause it back then, did the world end? I'll answer for you, no it didn't. In fact when CO2 levels are high the plants do much, much better.

What happened in the past is irrelevant to the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. I don't care what caused previous increases. That doesn't prove we don't have a different cause today. Plus you had to throw in the phony "the world didn't end" comment, as if that was relevant!!! We KNOW the earth can recover eventually, that's NOT the problem. The question is, what will happen human civilization? That's the what the deniers seem to ignore. We're not doing this for the earth per se, but for ourselves, so that we and those in the future will continue to live in a world similar to that in which we evolved.

And that classes you as anti science. The most fundamental aspect of geology is uniformitarianism. The present is the key to the past and vice versa. For you to ignore that fundamental foundation of one of the most precise sciences is a repudiation of the scientific method and renders your opinion null.

 

[westwall]

No we're not shitting you. If you did a little research, you wouldn't look so foolish considering that man puts more CO2 in the atmosphere in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

And yet with all that production, CO2 is still only 0.0387% of the atmosphere by volume.

Irrelevant, Dave. What's important is how high it's going over historical averages. It's a well known fact that the world would be a lot colder, if CO2 wasn't in the atmosphere. What's your mental hang up over the the logical progression of: more CO2, more trapped energy, more heat?

No, it's a well known fact that the Earth would be a lot colder if there were no WATER VAPOUR, by multiple orders of magnitude more powerful and more abundant in the atmosphere.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Can anyone tell me what the temperature would be today if we had CO2 levels equal to that of 200 years ago?

 

[skookerasbil]

Yep, very cold snowy winter last year, and a very hot summer. In the same places.

Weather swings wider and wilder, with an overall warming.

you stupid moron..................


1936 North American heat waveFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)


Summer (June–August) 1936 Temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit. Record warmest and coldest is based on a 112 yr period of records, 1895-2006.The 1936 North American heat wave was the most severe heat wave in the modern history of North America. It took place in the middle of the Great Depression of the 1930s, and caused catastrophic human suffering and an enormous economic toll. The death toll exceeded 5,000, and huge numbers of crops were destroyed by the heat and lack of moisture. Many state and city record high temperatures set during the 1936 heat wave still stand to this day. The heat wave followed one of the coldest winters on record.





1936 North American heat wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







fcukking meatball blown to shit again....................typical liberal eleitist asshole..........thinks all poeple were born this past Monday............

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

Delaware's temperature of 103 degree Fahrenheit (-506.85555555524 °C) on Wednesday, the 7th, which broke the record of 97 degree Fahrenheit (-510.1888888886 °C) from 1897. Philadelphia and New York eclipsed 100 degree Fahrenheit (-508.52222222192 °C) for the first time since 2001. Fredrick, Maryland, and Newark, New Jersey, among others topped the century mark (37.8 Celsius) for four days in a row.

The record for the longest heat wave in the world is generally accepted to have been set in Marble Bar in Australia, where from October 31, 1923 to April 7, 1924 the temperature broke the 37.8 degrees Celsius (100 °F) benchmark, setting the heat wave record at 160 days.

The 1936 North American heat wave during the Dust BowlDust BowlThe Dust Bowl or the Dirty Thirties was a period of severe dust storms causing major ecological and agricultural damage to American and Canadian prairie lands from 1930 to 1936 . The phenomenon was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow...
, followed the one of the
coldest winters on record—the 1936 North American cold wave. Massive Heat waves across North America were persistent in the 1930s, many mid-Atlantic/Ohio valley states recorded their highest temperatures during July 1934. The longest continuous string of 100 degree Fahrenheit (-508.52222222192 °C)
or higher temperatures was reached for 101 days in Yuma, Arizona during 1937 and the highest temperatures ever reached in Canada were recorded in two locations in SaskatchewanSaskatchewanSaskatchewan is a prairie province in Canada, which has an area of . Saskatchewan is bounded on the west by Alberta, on the north by the Northwest Territories, on the east by Manitoba, and on the south by the American states of Montana and North Dakota....
in July 1937.

Heat wave: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

 

[konradv]

Soooooo...what happened when the CO2 levels were over 1000ppm? We didn't cause it back then, did the world end? I'll answer for you, no it didn't. In fact when CO2 levels are high the plants do much, much better.

What happened in the past is irrelevant to the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. I don't care what caused previous increases. That doesn't prove we don't have a different cause today. Plus you had to throw in the phony "the world didn't end" comment, as if that was relevant!!! We KNOW the earth can recover eventually, that's NOT the problem. The question is, what will happen human civilization? That's the what the deniers seem to ignore. We're not doing this for the earth per se, but for ourselves, so that we and those in the future will continue to live in a world similar to that in which we evolved.

And that classes you as anti science. The most fundamental aspect of geology is uniformitarianism. The present is the key to the past and vice versa. For you to ignore that fundamental foundation of one of the most precise sciences is a repudiation of the scientific method and renders your opinion null.

You're wrong about that. Uniformitarianism only applies, if underlying conditions haven't changed. Your article is a big, stinking pile of BS. I said the vey same thimg in my post that you quoted, but chose to ignore. That's what's called "intellectual dishonesty" and calls into question YOUR scientific acumen, not mine.

 

[westwall]

What happened in the past is irrelevant to the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. I don't care what caused previous increases. That doesn't prove we don't have a different cause today. Plus you had to throw in the phony "the world didn't end" comment, as if that was relevant!!! We KNOW the earth can recover eventually, that's NOT the problem. The question is, what will happen human civilization? That's the what the deniers seem to ignore. We're not doing this for the earth per se, but for ourselves, so that we and those in the future will continue to live in a world similar to that in which we evolved.

And that classes you as anti science. The most fundamental aspect of geology is uniformitarianism. The present is the key to the past and vice versa. For you to ignore that fundamental foundation of one of the most precise sciences is a repudiation of the scientific method and renders your opinion null.

You're wrong about that. Uniformitarianism only applies, if underlying conditions haven't changed. Your article is a big, stinking pile of BS. I said the vey same thimg in my post that you quoted, but chose to ignore. That's what's called "intellectual dishonesty" and calls into question YOUR scientific acumen, not mine.

Thus your anti science stance. Uniformitarianism has been adopted by all the hard sciences. If you can find an historical analog then you must have extraordinary evidence to support your view (theory) that what is happening now is somehow different from the past. NO CLIMATOLOGIST HAS EVER PRESENTED A SHRED OF EMPIRICAL DATA TO SUPPORT THAT.

You are the very definition of intellectual dishonesty. When presented with irrefutable proof from the Vostock ice cores that CO2 levels increased 800 years after warming had occured you ignore that rather important evidence.

Thus your opinion is null.

 

[edthecynic]

][/B]Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot


Get a life people, its the natural cycle of the earth.

And the earth doesn't give a shit about us.

You sure? What happens, if GHGs keep going up? How is that natural? Maybe the earth doesn't give a shit about us, so what? That's ABSOLUTELY NOargument against the possibility of AGW. It's just more sloppy thinking from the deniers, because the real science and logic has passed them by leaving them with parroting whatever they hear that fits their bias.

Deep core samples. Try learning about them. The GHG's have been going up and down since the beginning of time. I have no reason to believe the earths natural process will change now.

And before you get your panties in a bunch and start screaming its MAN who is making the GHG's elevate, that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the earth. It has happened in the past, it will happen now, and it will happen in the future. The earth has been in the warm phase, a phase where it is very good for humans, it is time to change one way or the other, cold or hot. Either way...

Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot

Except that's the way the cycle SHOULD be, not the way it has been for the last 100 years or so!!!

It's been:

Hot
Warm
FLAT
Warm
Hot

We have not had a COLD phase in the last few cycles. After each warning trend the temperature leveled off at the higher level before rising again in the next warming trend. Each new warming trend began about where the previous warming trend left off.

 

[syrenn]

You sure? What happens, if GHGs keep going up? How is that natural? Maybe the earth doesn't give a shit about us, so what? That's ABSOLUTELY NOargument against the possibility of AGW. It's just more sloppy thinking from the deniers, because the real science and logic has passed them by leaving them with parroting whatever they hear that fits their bias.

Deep core samples. Try learning about them. The GHG's have been going up and down since the beginning of time. I have no reason to believe the earths natural process will change now.

And before you get your panties in a bunch and start screaming its MAN who is making the GHG's elevate, that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the earth. It has happened in the past, it will happen now, and it will happen in the future. The earth has been in the warm phase, a phase where it is very good for humans, it is time to change one way or the other, cold or hot. Either way...

Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot

Except that's the way the cycle SHOULD be, not the way it has been for the last 100 years or so!!!

It's been:

Hot
Warm
FLAT
Warm
Hot

We have not had a COLD phase in the last few cycles. After each warning trend the temperature leveled off at the higher level before rising again in the next warming trend. Each new warming trend began about where the previous warming trend left off.

Really? 100 years? 100 years of data? I think you need to brush up on a few billion years of data before you can say you know anything about what should happen in the earths weather cycles.

It rather like blaming man for the sun being "in a flat cycle" and not having enough sun spots.

 

[westwall]

You sure? What happens, if GHGs keep going up? How is that natural? Maybe the earth doesn't give a shit about us, so what? That's ABSOLUTELY NOargument against the possibility of AGW. It's just more sloppy thinking from the deniers, because the real science and logic has passed them by leaving them with parroting whatever they hear that fits their bias.

Deep core samples. Try learning about them. The GHG's have been going up and down since the beginning of time. I have no reason to believe the earths natural process will change now.

And before you get your panties in a bunch and start screaming its MAN who is making the GHG's elevate, that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the earth. It has happened in the past, it will happen now, and it will happen in the future. The earth has been in the warm phase, a phase where it is very good for humans, it is time to change one way or the other, cold or hot. Either way...

Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot

Except that's the way the cycle SHOULD be, not the way it has been for the last 100 years or so!!!

It's been:

Hot
Warm
FLAT
Warm
Hot

We have not had a COLD phase in the last few cycles. After each warning trend the temperature leveled off at the higher level before rising again in the next warming trend. Each new warming trend began about where the previous warming trend left off.

I guess you forgot the early 1970's when the "consensus" of the time was a upcoming Ice Age?

Newsweek on the cooling world

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Excerpts_from_the_August_1977_book.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Ominous.pdf

Another Ice Age? -- Printout -- TIME

There are several dozen more I can post if you need your memory jolted further.

 

[edthecynic]

Deep core samples. Try learning about them. The GHG's have been going up and down since the beginning of time. I have no reason to believe the earths natural process will change now.

And before you get your panties in a bunch and start screaming its MAN who is making the GHG's elevate, that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the earth. It has happened in the past, it will happen now, and it will happen in the future. The earth has been in the warm phase, a phase where it is very good for humans, it is time to change one way or the other, cold or hot. Either way...

Hot
Warm
Cold
Warm
Hot

Except that's the way the cycle SHOULD be, not the way it has been for the last 100 years or so!!!

It's been:

Hot
Warm
FLAT
Warm
Hot

We have not had a COLD phase in the last few cycles. After each warning trend the temperature leveled off at the higher level before rising again in the next warming trend. Each new warming trend began about where the previous warming trend left off.

Really? 100 years? 100 years of data? I think you need to brush up on a few billion years of data before you can say you know anything about what should happen in the earths weather cycles.

It rather like blaming man for the sun being "in a flat cycle" and not having enough sun spots.

We only have about 150 years of direct instrument measurement data. Any data for longer periods comes from PROXY data, and proxy data is less accurate and limited in its global scope. But you knew that already. Deniers depend on the least accurate data for their beliefs.