Republicans alone in dening global warming

[Meister]

It's called "Global Climate Interruption" now

 

[Chris]

It's called "Global Climate Interruption" now

It's called adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[Big Fitz]

When a person has no facts they resort to personal attacks.

How sad for you.

Here are the facts....

Record Events for Fri Oct 8, 2010 through Thu Oct 14, 2010
Total Records: 1558
Rainfall: 174
Snowfall: 2
High Temperatures: 998
Low Temperatures: 62
Lowest Max Temperatures: 10
Highest Min Temperatures: 312

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

I resort to attacking stupidity because I have a low tolerance of that particular character trait.

It's fucking CLIMATE CHANGE. Anyone who knows jack shit about it, knows that. The climate is changing. Intelligent people know that. Intelligent scientists - the guys who actually do the science... THEY call it CLIMATE CHANGE. Idiot.

Sorry, it's global warming....caused by adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere year after year after year.

In this century alone, we will add 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

And if it IS happening, there is nothing mankind can do about it, because mankind has NOTHING to do with it.

 

[DiveCon]

Wrong.

It will work when carbon nanotubes are perfected.

And we aren't that far away. Thank God, for the folks at MIT. They don't listen to Republican bullshit. They just develop the technology.

Ohhh Chris, poor Chris. Not Republican's at all (I'm a lifelong Democrat) just honest scientists who are tired of alarmist claptrap.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

You are a shill for the American Petroleum Institue.

very few believe YOU, because you are a proven fucking moronic idiot
who is a shill for the DNC and AlGore

 

[Big Fitz]

It's called "Global Climate Interruption" now

It's called adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

What's a trillion when you have an atmospheric volume in Quadrillions?

let's see... the estimated atmospheric weight of the earth is considered at 5 Quadrillion metric tons. According to the National Center of Atmospheric Research, of course.

Out of that .04% is CO2 in total, or 200 trillion tons.

Out of that .6% is produced by mankind's activity, or 12 trillion tons.

Sounds like a big number doesn't it? Scary number too. But then again, the size of the atmosphere in total out masses the CO2 portion we produce by over a 4100 to 1 margin. And CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas as compared to water vapor or even methane for that matter! (0.000179% composition or 900 billion metric tons)

We as a species cannot stop a simple line of thunderstorms or even make it reliably rain. We cannot even permanently destroy a little area like Prince William Sound or Lake Erie Hell, we can't even destroy permanently the area surrounding Chernobyl!!

And yet, we... are destroying this planet.

Are you FINALLY getting the point of why most rational thinking people find Global Warming (no matter how you try to rebrand this lemon of a theory) a bit loony?

Of course not.

Because it's not about the science. It's about controlling people. It's about destroying western civilization and some nihilistic effort to revert to some 'natural' communal existence that never could feasibly exist. It's about killing everyone before you kill yourself for the sin of existing.

Save the rest of us the irritation and go first. Be a leader. We'll catch up later when we're finished taking care of business here. We're sure you'd be much happier elsewhere anyway.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's called "Global Climate Interruption" now

It's called adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

What's a trillion when you have an atmospheric volume in Quadrillions?

let's see... the estimated atmospheric weight of the earth is considered at 5 Quadrillion metric tons. According to the National Center of Atmospheric Research, of course.

Out of that .04% is CO2 in total, or 200 trillion tons.

Out of that .6% is produced by mankind's activity, or 12 trillion tons.

Sounds like a big number doesn't it? Scary number too. But then again, the size of the atmosphere in total out masses the CO2 portion we produce by over a 4100 to 1 margin. And CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas as compared to water vapor or even methane for that matter! (0.000179% composition or 900 billion metric tons)

We as a species cannot stop a simple line of thunderstorms or even make it reliably rain. We cannot even permanently destroy a little area like Prince William Sound or Lake Erie Hell, we can't even destroy permanently the area surrounding Chernobyl!!

And yet, we... are destroying this planet.

Are you FINALLY getting the point of why most rational thinking people find Global Warming (no matter how you try to rebrand this lemon of a theory) a bit loony?

Of course not.

Because it's not about the science. It's about controlling people. It's about destroying western civilization and some nihilistic effort to revert to some 'natural' communal existence that never could feasibly exist. It's about killing everyone before you kill yourself for the sin of existing.

Save the rest of us the irritation and go first. Be a leader. We'll catch up later when we're finished taking care of business here. We're sure you'd be much happier elsewhere anyway.

I think the warmers would do better hitching the wagon onto Methane. It is a very powerful green house gas with 70 times over 25 years the strength of CO2. It could really cause a massive change in temperature if it was released from the perma frost reserves in the arctic. A massive change on the scale of 2-3c over a decade.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Before Global Warming

After

Any questions?

 

[Chris]

It's called "Global Climate Interruption" now

It's called adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

What's a trillion when you have an atmospheric volume in Quadrillions?

let's see... the estimated atmospheric weight of the earth is considered at 5 Quadrillion metric tons. According to the National Center of Atmospheric Research, of course.

Out of that .04% is CO2 in total, or 200 trillion tons.

Out of that .6% is produced by mankind's activity, or 12 trillion tons.

Sounds like a big number doesn't it? Scary number too. But then again, the size of the atmosphere in total out masses the CO2 portion we produce by over a 4100 to 1 margin. And CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas as compared to water vapor or even methane for that matter! (0.000179% composition or 900 billion metric tons)

We as a species cannot stop a simple line of thunderstorms or even make it reliably rain. We cannot even permanently destroy a little area like Prince William Sound or Lake Erie Hell, we can't even destroy permanently the area surrounding Chernobyl!!

And yet, we... are destroying this planet.

Are you FINALLY getting the point of why most rational thinking people find Global Warming (no matter how you try to rebrand this lemon of a theory) a bit loony?

Of course not.

Because it's not about the science. It's about controlling people. It's about destroying western civilization and some nihilistic effort to revert to some 'natural' communal existence that never could feasibly exist. It's about killing everyone before you kill yourself for the sin of existing.

Save the rest of us the irritation and go first. Be a leader. We'll catch up later when we're finished taking care of business here. We're sure you'd be much happier elsewhere anyway.

Sorry, bucko, 1,000 billion tons is a lot of CO2.

 

[Revere]

No, it's not. How much C02 is in the atmosphere no matter what else happens?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's called adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

What's a trillion when you have an atmospheric volume in Quadrillions?

let's see... the estimated atmospheric weight of the earth is considered at 5 Quadrillion metric tons. According to the National Center of Atmospheric Research, of course.

Out of that .04% is CO2 in total, or 200 trillion tons.

Out of that .6% is produced by mankind's activity, or 12 trillion tons.

Sounds like a big number doesn't it? Scary number too. But then again, the size of the atmosphere in total out masses the CO2 portion we produce by over a 4100 to 1 margin. And CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas as compared to water vapor or even methane for that matter! (0.000179% composition or 900 billion metric tons)

We as a species cannot stop a simple line of thunderstorms or even make it reliably rain. We cannot even permanently destroy a little area like Prince William Sound or Lake Erie Hell, we can't even destroy permanently the area surrounding Chernobyl!!

And yet, we... are destroying this planet.

Are you FINALLY getting the point of why most rational thinking people find Global Warming (no matter how you try to rebrand this lemon of a theory) a bit loony?

Of course not.

Because it's not about the science. It's about controlling people. It's about destroying western civilization and some nihilistic effort to revert to some 'natural' communal existence that never could feasibly exist. It's about killing everyone before you kill yourself for the sin of existing.

Save the rest of us the irritation and go first. Be a leader. We'll catch up later when we're finished taking care of business here. We're sure you'd be much happier elsewhere anyway.

Sorry, bucko, 1,000 billion tons is a lot of CO2.

The difference between ignorant and stupid is that ignorant people may not be aware of certain facts and still hold a belief or idea. Stupid people are presented the facts contrary to their belief or idea and carry on as if nothing happened.

 

[Chris]

It's called adding 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.

What's a trillion when you have an atmospheric volume in Quadrillions?

let's see... the estimated atmospheric weight of the earth is considered at 5 Quadrillion metric tons. According to the National Center of Atmospheric Research, of course.

Out of that .04% is CO2 in total, or 200 trillion tons.

Out of that .6% is produced by mankind's activity, or 12 trillion tons.

Sounds like a big number doesn't it? Scary number too. But then again, the size of the atmosphere in total out masses the CO2 portion we produce by over a 4100 to 1 margin. And CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas as compared to water vapor or even methane for that matter! (0.000179% composition or 900 billion metric tons)

We as a species cannot stop a simple line of thunderstorms or even make it reliably rain. We cannot even permanently destroy a little area like Prince William Sound or Lake Erie Hell, we can't even destroy permanently the area surrounding Chernobyl!!

And yet, we... are destroying this planet.

Are you FINALLY getting the point of why most rational thinking people find Global Warming (no matter how you try to rebrand this lemon of a theory) a bit loony?

Of course not.

Because it's not about the science. It's about controlling people. It's about destroying western civilization and some nihilistic effort to revert to some 'natural' communal existence that never could feasibly exist. It's about killing everyone before you kill yourself for the sin of existing.

Save the rest of us the irritation and go first. Be a leader. We'll catch up later when we're finished taking care of business here. We're sure you'd be much happier elsewhere anyway.

I think the warmers would do better hitching the wagon onto Methane. It is a very powerful green house gas with 70 times over 25 years the strength of CO2. It could really cause a massive change in temperature if it was released from the perma frost reserves in the arctic. A massive change on the scale of 2-3c over a decade.

And that is exactly what is happening.

 

[Chris]

What's a trillion when you have an atmospheric volume in Quadrillions?

let's see... the estimated atmospheric weight of the earth is considered at 5 Quadrillion metric tons. According to the National Center of Atmospheric Research, of course.

Out of that .04% is CO2 in total, or 200 trillion tons.

Out of that .6% is produced by mankind's activity, or 12 trillion tons.

Sounds like a big number doesn't it? Scary number too. But then again, the size of the atmosphere in total out masses the CO2 portion we produce by over a 4100 to 1 margin. And CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas as compared to water vapor or even methane for that matter! (0.000179% composition or 900 billion metric tons)

We as a species cannot stop a simple line of thunderstorms or even make it reliably rain. We cannot even permanently destroy a little area like Prince William Sound or Lake Erie Hell, we can't even destroy permanently the area surrounding Chernobyl!!

And yet, we... are destroying this planet.

Are you FINALLY getting the point of why most rational thinking people find Global Warming (no matter how you try to rebrand this lemon of a theory) a bit loony?

Of course not.

Because it's not about the science. It's about controlling people. It's about destroying western civilization and some nihilistic effort to revert to some 'natural' communal existence that never could feasibly exist. It's about killing everyone before you kill yourself for the sin of existing.

Save the rest of us the irritation and go first. Be a leader. We'll catch up later when we're finished taking care of business here. We're sure you'd be much happier elsewhere anyway.

Sorry, bucko, 1,000 billion tons is a lot of CO2.

The difference between ignorant and stupid is that ignorant people may not be aware of certain facts and still hold a belief or idea. Stupid people are presented the facts contrary to their belief or idea and carry on as if nothing happened.

The people at MIT are neither ignorant nor stupid....

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sorry, bucko, 1,000 billion tons is a lot of CO2.

The difference between ignorant and stupid is that ignorant people may not be aware of certain facts and still hold a belief or idea. Stupid people are presented the facts contrary to their belief or idea and carry on as if nothing happened.

The people at MIT are neither ignorant nor stupid....

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

It's time to play MIT's Fake Science Game

Wheel
of
Climate
Change

wait I mean

Wheel
of
Climate
Disruption

 

[Big Fitz]

Sorry, bucko, 1,000 billion tons is a lot of CO2.

Yes, I examined the numbers.

CO2 you're trying to quote as so much bigger is still only 12 zeros.

1,000,000,000,000

See? Hundreds, Thousands, Millions, Billions, Trillion. 1000 billions equals 1 trillion. So fucking what? and I even gave you credit for 12 TIMES the amount of CO2 and it's still worthless.

Total volume of the atmosphere is 5 Quadrillion! That's 5, plus 15 zeros.

5,000,000,000,000,000

and our portion of that amount of CO2 is 0.6 percent. No fucking way is it doing shit to the environment when a few sunspots can cause a hotter or cooler year, or one volcano burping mightilly can give us an extra cold winter, or La Nina or El Nino giving all sorts of weather disruptions which suddenly have become so common, nobody pays much attention. It's NORMAL.

Once again. You're all about global fascism... as long as you're in charge.

 

[Oddball]

The people at MIT are neither ignorant nor stupid....

yaddayaddayaddyyadda

Climate change odds much worse than thought

Yeah...And those MIT economists know a thing or three about the economics of your Utopian "green" pipe dream:

The sound and the fury that has characterized the public discourse on global warming often obscures a basic economic fact: we are in the situation we are in because it requires fewer resources to generate electricity with coal or propel automobiles with petroleum than it does to accomplish those same goals with solar cells and biofuels. The “green economy” our politicians have placed on a pedestal is not an improvement over our existing one — there is no gain to be had in producing with the effort of three men what we previously accomplished with two. We should tolerate this inefficiency only insofar as it helps us avoid some other, greater harm.

There are many who would have us act unilaterally, who claim we will gain some sort of “competitive edge” over China and the rest of the world by pursuing national policies of innovation or economic re-engineering. Through the magic of innovation, we will improve our economy, gain power relative to the rest of the world, and save the environment all in one stroke. This is nonsense.

Firstly, it misunderstands international trade. Our economic well-being is independent of Chinese productivity. The idea that other nations will “steal our jobs” or otherwise capitalize off of our unwillingness to go green is a fallacy. The belief that another country’s rise or fall impacts our economic well-being in any appreciable way is unsupported by economic theory and disproven by empirical evidence (ignoring, for simplicity, the prospect of military confrontation, where relative strength does indeed matter). There is no race or contest being played out; the U.S. and China are not Pepsi and Coca Cola writ large.

Secondly, it misunderstands the nature of public goods problems, in which players benefit by avoiding the costs of providing the good rather than leaping headlong into them. When we offer to reduce our carbon emissions, pay for green research, or otherwise make some sacrifice for the global environment, we are merely generating a benefit for the rest of the world to free-ride off of, bearing the weight of having three men do the work of two so that others will not have to make the same effort.

Lastly, it misunderstands the nature of innovation. The word is tossed around like a magic wand, but it is merely a means to an end. National policies to subsidize innovation have no more a successful track record than national policies that subsidize capital formation. The policies themselves (usually large, government spending boondoggles like the Synthetic Fuels Corporation), are economic distortions — they place incidences on some and make beneficiaries out of others, but on the net, society as a whole loses. Innovation is doubly worse as a public policy — not only is it a distortion, but information creation is yet another global public good. Take, for example, the tale of solar power. U.S. companies, at considerable cost to the taxpayer, have made advances in solar cells, making them at lower cost and with greater efficiency. Their inventors have reaped considerable reward for the sale of their intellectual property. But nearly all of the productivity gains from those technological developments have gone to countries like China and Malaysia, the places where it makes economic sense to manufacture solar cells.

It is not in our national self-interest to try and bear the costs of global warming by ourselves. For a wealthy, cold, non-agrarian, stable country such as ours, it is unclear whether we even stand that much to lose from a rise in temperatures. There have been several studies that suggest the costs of mitigating climate change exceed the benefits in a country such as the United States — work by William Nordhaus and Robert Mendelsohn of Yale, Richard Tol of Carnegie Mellon, Melissa Dell and Benjamin Olken of MIT, and others, suggest this outcome is likely.

Global warming not worth the fight - The Tech

I hope your petard doesn't get all stretched out, from you being hoisted by it.

 

[Big Fitz]

The difference between ignorant and stupid is that ignorant people may not be aware of certain facts and still hold a belief or idea. Stupid people are presented the facts contrary to their belief or idea and carry on as if nothing happened.

The people at MIT are neither ignorant nor stupid....

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

It's time to play MIT's Fake Science Game

Wheel
of
Climate
Change

wait I mean

Wheel
of
Climate
Disruption

Wheel of Morality...
turn turn turn
and tell us the lesson
that we should learn!

Bankrupt.

YAAAAAYYYYYY WE'RE MORALLY BANKRUPT!

Never done, but should have been.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv6IWX1_XHQ[/ame]

 

[Chris]

The people at MIT are neither ignorant nor stupid....

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

It's time to play MIT's Fake Science Game

Wheel
of
Climate
Change

wait I mean

Wheel
of
Climate
Disruption

Wheel of Morality...
turn turn turn
and tell us the lesson
that we should learn!

Bankrupt.

YAAAAAYYYYYY WE'RE MORALLY BANKRUPT!

Certainly the right is.

 

[Revere]

How much CO2 is already in the atmosphere?

 

[Big Fitz]

How much CO2 is already in the atmosphere?

apparently nature produces 200 trillion. we... supply the remaining 12 trillion.

So shouldn't we be trying to stop nature 18 times harder?

Certainly the right is.

As pithy as a hemorrhoid commercial, yet again Chris.

 

[Revere]

And what percent of the atmosphere is C02?