Global Warming Pie Chart

[Toddsterpatriot]

See, it wouldnt be a waste if it is a problem now would it? Your mights only work one way...thats not how possibilities work

Would it be a waste if it cost $10 trillion to reduce temps 0.2 degrees in 2080?
Would it be a waste if it cost $20 trillion? $30 trillion?
Would it be a waste if warmer temps were a good thing?

Your mights are very expensive. Your expensive mandates might not work.

Why do you keep saying Trillions? I think it's because you cant use Bazillion
Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing? and What if Warmer temps were a bad thing? If you cant do that...your hypothetical game is rigged

Davos call for $14trn 'greening' of global economy - Business News - Business - The Independent

$700 billion a year for the next 20 years is $14 trillion.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Would it be a waste if it cost $10 trillion to reduce temps 0.2 degrees in 2080?
Would it be a waste if it cost $20 trillion? $30 trillion?
Would it be a waste if warmer temps were a good thing?

Your mights are very expensive. Your expensive mandates might not work.

Why do you keep saying Trillions? I think it's because you cant use Bazillion
Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing? and What if Warmer temps were a bad thing? If you cant do that...your hypothetical game is rigged

Why do you keep saying Trillions?

Because the government wants us to waste/spend trillions.

Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Because that's the maximum reduction we'd buy with our wasted trillions.

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing?

Then your wasted trillions would be wasted.

You lie...there are plenty of values before trillion...you go for the biggest value for effect

You lie..unless suddenly now you believe in theories and you also believe that is ALL we can do.

What if warmer temps were a bad thing? You wouldnt be able to find enough trillions to undo the damage once it's done.

Again, You promote nothingness, do nothing, stand there. Whats the worst that can happen? You know, and you constant questions arent a point

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you keep saying Trillions? I think it's because you cant use Bazillion
Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing? and What if Warmer temps were a bad thing? If you cant do that...your hypothetical game is rigged

Why do you keep saying Trillions?

Because the government wants us to waste/spend trillions.

Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Because that's the maximum reduction we'd buy with our wasted trillions.

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing?

Then your wasted trillions would be wasted.

You lie...there are plenty of values before trillion...you go for the biggest value for effect

You lie..unless suddenly now you believe in theories and you also believe that is ALL we can do.

What if warmer temps were a bad thing? You wouldnt be able to find enough trillions to undo the damage once it's done.

Again, You promote nothingness, do nothing, stand there. Whats the worst that can happen? You know, and you constant questions arent a point

Again, You promote nothingness, do nothing, stand there.

I'd like a few dozen new nuclear power plants. Agree?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you keep saying Trillions? I think it's because you cant use Bazillion
Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing? and What if Warmer temps were a bad thing? If you cant do that...your hypothetical game is rigged

Why do you keep saying Trillions?

Because the government wants us to waste/spend trillions.

Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Because that's the maximum reduction we'd buy with our wasted trillions.

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing?

Then your wasted trillions would be wasted.

You lie...there are plenty of values before trillion...you go for the biggest value for effect

You lie..unless suddenly now you believe in theories and you also believe that is ALL we can do.

What if warmer temps were a bad thing? You wouldnt be able to find enough trillions to undo the damage once it's done.

Again, You promote nothingness, do nothing, stand there. Whats the worst that can happen? You know, and you constant questions arent a point

What if warmer temps were a bad thing? You wouldnt be able to find enough trillions to undo the damage once it's done.

What damage? Trillions can fix a lot.

 

[tap4154]

Why do you keep saying Trillions?

Because the government wants us to waste/spend trillions.

Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Because that's the maximum reduction we'd buy with our wasted trillions.

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing?

Then your wasted trillions would be wasted.

You lie...there are plenty of values before trillion...you go for the biggest value for effect

You lie..unless suddenly now you believe in theories and you also believe that is ALL we can do.

What if warmer temps were a bad thing? You wouldnt be able to find enough trillions to undo the damage once it's done.

Again, You promote nothingness, do nothing, stand there. Whats the worst that can happen? You know, and you constant questions arent a point

What if warmer temps were a bad thing? You wouldnt be able to find enough trillions to undo the damage once it's done.

What damage? Trillions can fix a lot.

Man cannot change climate cycles, dude.

We can reduce real surface air pollution, but we cannot control Sunspot cycles or Earth orbit variations, which cause climate cycles.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Would it be a waste if it cost $10 trillion to reduce temps 0.2 degrees in 2080?
Would it be a waste if it cost $20 trillion? $30 trillion?
Would it be a waste if warmer temps were a good thing?

Your mights are very expensive. Your expensive mandates might not work.

Why do you keep saying Trillions? I think it's because you cant use Bazillion
Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing? and What if Warmer temps were a bad thing? If you cant do that...your hypothetical game is rigged

Davos call for $14trn 'greening' of global economy - Business News - Business - The Independent

$700 billion a year for the next 20 years is $14 trillion.

Only a sustained and dramatic shift to infrastructure and industrial practices using low-carbon technology can save the world and its economy from devastating global warming, according to a Davos-commissioned alliance led by the former Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, in the most dramatic call so far to fight climate change on business grounds.

these guys are nuts....."low-carbon technology"?.......for a poor country like Mexico where one of their major products is oil.....and the food products they export are dependent upon oil for transport as well.....

 

[BlindBoo]

Screaming Eagle links to a climate change denial website, which posts a link to a study which is self -published by the author on an domain owned by the author of the study, as proof positive that these thousands of peer reviewed studies have been scientifically debunked.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.


If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.

Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.

Ten Years And Counting: Where's The Global Warming? - Forbes

Forbes likes to cherry pick.

Here's what NASA says.

Climate Change: Key Indicators

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Screaming Eagle links to a climate change denial website, which posts a link to a study which is self -published by the author on an domain owned by the author of the study, as proof positive that these thousands of peer reviewed studies have been scientifically debunked.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.


If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.

Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.

Ten Years And Counting: Where's The Global Warming? - Forbes

Forbes likes to cherry pick.

Here's what NASA says.

Climate Change: Key Indicators

your charts confirm exactly what Forbes said.....the NASA charts show since 2005 co2 has risen while temperature has leveled and gone down....

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thanks Blind. They love to quote Nasa until Nasa says shit like this:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:
■ The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
■ Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

Now they will ignore NASA and go back to the 24 deniers as evidence of...something

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks Blind. They love to quote Nasa until Nasa says shit like this:

Climate Change: Evidence

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:
■ The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
■ Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

Now they will ignore NASA and go back to the 24 deniers as evidence of...something

They love to quote Nasa until Nasa says shit like this: The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1



While it is shit, NASA didn't say it


IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5

IPCC? LOL!
They're always good for a laugh.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Id love for those same guys who were just speaking highly of NASA to take a look and either
1. Denounce NASA as Lefties or
2. Accept it

Extreme events

The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11

Ocean acidification

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Thanks Blind. They love to quote Nasa until Nasa says shit like this:

Climate Change: Evidence

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:
■ The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
■ Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

Now they will ignore NASA and go back to the 24 deniers as evidence of...something

nothing of what you quoted proves anything one way or another....

the very fact that NASA says 'Earth's climate responds to solar output' recognizes that there are possibly other causes than co2 for global warming.....

not to mention that they also say 'large changes in climate have happened very quickly' in the past.....you'll note this was BEFORE man-made co2 emissions ever existed....

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thanks Blind. They love to quote Nasa until Nasa says shit like this:

Climate Change: Evidence

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:
■ The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
■ Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

Now they will ignore NASA and go back to the 24 deniers as evidence of...something

nothing of what you quoted proves anything one way or another....

the very fact that NASA says 'Earth's climate responds to solar output' recognizes that there are possibly other causes than co2 for global warming.....

not to mention that they also say 'large changes in climate have happened very quickly' in the past.....you'll note this was BEFORE man-made co2 emissions ever existed....

Hmm....NASA Scientists who have studied data to reach a logical conclusion or some guy on the internet with questions?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

 

[tap4154]

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

Alway helps to put things in context:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Thanks Blind. They love to quote Nasa until Nasa says shit like this:

Climate Change: Evidence



Now they will ignore NASA and go back to the 24 deniers as evidence of...something

nothing of what you quoted proves anything one way or another....

the very fact that NASA says 'Earth's climate responds to solar output' recognizes that there are possibly other causes than co2 for global warming.....

not to mention that they also say 'large changes in climate have happened very quickly' in the past.....you'll note this was BEFORE man-made co2 emissions ever existed....

Hmm....NASA Scientists who have studied data to reach a logical conclusion or some guy on the internet with questions?

what logical conclusion has NASA reached here....? that climate is changing....?

 

[Darkwind]

See, it wouldnt be a waste if it is a problem now would it? Your mights only work one way...thats not how possibilities work

Would it be a waste if it cost $10 trillion to reduce temps 0.2 degrees in 2080?
Would it be a waste if it cost $20 trillion? $30 trillion?
Would it be a waste if warmer temps were a good thing?

Your mights are very expensive. Your expensive mandates might not work.

Why do you keep saying Trillions? I think it's because you cant use Bazillion
Why do you keep saying reduce by 0.2 degrees?

Lets at least pretend there is another side..I.E. What if warmer temps were a good thing? and What if Warmer temps were a bad thing? If you cant do that...your hypothetical game is rigged

Its not his game. It is yours.

Everything with regard to global warming being caused by man is a question of 'what if'.

The numbers for the past 20 years have been plugged into the climate models that started all of this, just to see how close they were to reality.

Lets say that Star Trek has more basis in reality than their climate models.

What if.....


indeed.

 

[Flopper]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog[/url]

Discuss..

That does look overwhelming, but what you have to take into account is who did the 13,950 and who did the 24. Then there is the question regarding what/how much data gathering did each study use. Which of those were actually done by climatologists vs. studies done by scientists in fields other than climatology.

That being said, I have little to no doubt there is global warming and that at least some of it is due to man-made causes. However, your pie chart proves absolutely nothing conclusively. IMHO I'd say that deforestation has just as much to do with 'man-made' contributions to global warming as the burning of fossil fuels.

Whether 24 or 2400 oppose, it still shows overwhelming support.
It wouldn't surprise me if 23 of the 24 are USMB members.

 

[Redfish]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog[/url]

Discuss..

That does look overwhelming, but what you have to take into account is who did the 13,950 and who did the 24. Then there is the question regarding what/how much data gathering did each study use. Which of those were actually done by climatologists vs. studies done by scientists in fields other than climatology.

That being said, I have little to no doubt there is global warming and that at least some of it is due to man-made causes. However, your pie chart proves absolutely nothing conclusively. IMHO I'd say that deforestation has just as much to do with 'man-made' contributions to global warming as the burning of fossil fuels.

Whether 24 or 2400 oppose, it still shows overwhelming support.
It wouldn't surprise me if 23 of the 24 are USMB members.

Ummm, lets see now------climate is the average of weather over some period of time, right?

If the climate is warming, shouldn't the average weather also show a warming trend?

But it doesn't does it?

Soooooooooo, you changed from global warming to global climate change.

Got some news for ya------the eartth's climate is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now--------man has never had anything to do with it and never will.

your prophet algore is a fraud, AGW is a hoax. End of story.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog[/url]

Discuss..

That does look overwhelming, but what you have to take into account is who did the 13,950 and who did the 24. Then there is the question regarding what/how much data gathering did each study use. Which of those were actually done by climatologists vs. studies done by scientists in fields other than climatology.

That being said, I have little to no doubt there is global warming and that at least some of it is due to man-made causes. However, your pie chart proves absolutely nothing conclusively. IMHO I'd say that deforestation has just as much to do with 'man-made' contributions to global warming as the burning of fossil fuels.

Whether 24 or 2400 oppose, it still shows overwhelming support.
It wouldn't surprise me if 23 of the 24 are USMB members.

that's a compliment...

The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.

Ten Years And Counting: Where's The Global Warming? - Forbes