RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 522
- 155
This whole idiotic thread is officially dead because it was debunked by 'theliq' a long time ago in post #23. Why is this zombie thread still staggering along? Just so the denier cultists can demonstrate how extremely retarded and ignorant they are? The OP is nonsense based on a total misunderstanding of the meaning of the scientific report being cited. Give it up, retards, you have no idea what you're talking about.The sky is falling sort of. Over the last 10 years, the height of clouds has been shrinking, according to new research.
it could have an important effect on global climate change.
Clouds that are lower in the atmosphere would allow Earth to cool more efficiently, potentially offsetting some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases.
Shrinking Sky! Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds | Atmospheric Science & Climate Change | Cloud Formation & Height | LiveScience
Well this New Zealand study is true BUT what you forgot to mention IS, that the high atmosphere CLOUDS are disappearing at a rapid rate (or should I say lowering and a % disappearing). IT IS THE EARTHS RESPONSE TO GLOBAL WARMING you dumb ass so the joke is on YOU....the reason blows out clearly your theory that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS IN FACT THE OPPOSITE.....
LOL....and you obviously have the mental reasoning abilities of 2nd grader. A DEAD 2nd grader.You try to insult my mental reasoning with THIS?? You've got the vocabulary and sentence structure of a 4th grader. A FLUNKING 4th grader.
But that is because you are a total retard and you have your head jammed so far up your ass. Pretty obvious, really.Strange, I've lived during those same 20 years and I haven't noticed any change whatsoever.Mean while, the climate warms, the weather patterns change radically, the polar ice disappears . I have seen the changes in the last twenty + years, and somebodys youthful skepticism is sounding a little hollow.
Actually, it is your posts that are stupid, nonsensical and usually off-point. Anthropogenic global warming has produced changes in climate patterns and water vapor levels that are, in fact, causing more extreme weather events. Scientists have tracked this increase and so have the insurance companies.sorry for the criticism, but what a stupid, nonsensical and off-point comment. climate change will cause extremes. unless it doesnt.Climate change will cause extremes; where I live the EXTREMES have been noticeable within the last few years.
Climate Change Is Getting Expensive For The Insurance Industry
As natural disasters increase, insurance companies are paying out more and more.
(excerpts)
No, it's not your imagination; extreme weather events are becoming more common. It's hard to pinpoint climate change as the culprit on any single event, but it's increasingly difficult to ignore the increase in death and destruction caused by natural disasters. And if anyone knows about that, it's the insurance industry, which has to pay every time a new natural disaster hits. On a call with members of the Union of Concerned Scientists last week, one insurance executive estimated that economic losses from natural disasters have climbed from an average of $25 billion each year during the 1980s to $130 billion annually this past decade.
IPCC Report Confirms What Businesses Already Know: Extreme Weather & Climate Change Has Economic Impacts
Forbes
11/23/2011
(excerpts)
...the increasingly rock solid research confirming that climate change is real and that more extreme weather is on the way unless we dramatically reduce carbon pollution. Just last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a Special Report examining the link between extreme weather events and climate change. It found that climate change is indeed responsible for the increased frequency of pronounced heat waves, heavy rainfall events and other erratic and destructive weather events. Beyond the human and ecological toll, extreme weather reaps huge economic costs. 2011 has been one of the most costly years on record for extreme weather events in the U.S. with more billion-dollar events than ever before. Drought and wildfire in the Southwest and Southern Plains, for example, cost more than $9 billion in direct damages to cattle, agriculture and infrastructure.
What an idiotic assumption! Being against pollution and the foolish increase in greenhouse gas levels is not at all the same thing as being "against anything that man does". Your reasoning ability seems very moronic. The industrial age has indeed "been going on for quite a while" and it has increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by about 40% which has caused global warming and climate changesdo you mean some sort of human caused climate change? the industrial age has been going on for quite a while so I take it you are just against anything that man does.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL....When exactly did your brain finally die? Where do you get this kind of idiotic nonsense? Nobody anywhere is saying that "we should go back to pre-industrial civilization". Apparently you're too freaking stupid to recognize a straw-man argument even when you're trying to parrot one, but the rest of us aren't. Switching over to non-polluting, non-carbon emitting energy sources will improve our world, not take it back into the Dark Ages, nitwit.are you saying that we should go back to pre-industrial civilization? where would that leave most of the 6,000,000,000 people on the planet? are you really willing to give up your car, television and supermarket for some noble cause that would make your life cold, hard and short?
Actually the article cited in the OP doesn't say that at all. The article says that an analysis of 10 years of some satellite data found that "global average cloud height decreased by around 1 percent over the decade, a distance of 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction stemmed from fewer clouds forming at very high altitudes.The Terra satellite is set to continue collecting data through the rest of this decade, which will help determine whether or not the cloud lowering is a consistent trend. And no one fully understands how clouds will respond to a warming climate. Clouds that are lower in the atmosphere would allow Earth to cool more efficiently, potentially offsetting some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases." A possible drop in average cloud levels of only 100 feet or so in an atmosphere that is, in terms of cloud formation, about a 100,000 feet deep is actually pretty insignificant. Only if this possible trend continues and amplifies would it have any possible effect on global warming and even that would almost certainly be rather minimal compared to the effects of the ever increasing levels of greenhouse gases.back to the OP. it appears that the cloud level is changing, in a way that reduces the recent warming. can you say negative feedback?.
LOLOLOLOL.....talk about 'grasping at straws'....LOLOL...this whole field of scientific study regarding AGW/CC has been intensely investigated by tens of thousands of scientists for many decades now and no previously unnoticed "other negative feedbacks" have been found so far....which doesn't, of course, prove that there aren't any but it does make their existence rather improbable.how many other negative feedbacks are out there that we dont know about?
What an idiotic comment! No one "needs" or "wants" the scientific studies of the positive feedbacks in the physics of global warming "to be right". They simply are correct and based on sound science. This has nothing to do with some idiocy about "mankind's wickedness". Where do you get that crap? This has to do with the choices in energy sources mankind made a long time ago. Unfortunately for us now, the path we've gone down in developing the use of fossil fuels was begun in ignorance of the long term consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (up 40% so far and still rising fast) by burning off millions of years of naturally sequestered CO2 (i.e.- fossil fuels) in only a few centuries.why do people seem to want, seem to need the crazy IPCC positive feedback to be right so that we can blame mankind's wickedness.
Just out of curiosity, just how did you get your head that far up your ass?remember the Gulf oil spill? worst manmade disaster ever. seems like mother nature pretty much took care of it despite all the exaggerated predictions of decades of doom.
Long-term effects of Gulf oil spill on shrimp, other species is still unknown
January 29, 2012
(excerpts)
....the long-term effects on fish species from that oil, and the chemicals used to fight it, are still largely unknown. Possible effects on the growth and mortality of Gulf shrimp could come from a variety of factors, including alterations in the food they eat or the species who prey on them, changes in the marsh they inhabit, or changes in their own biology. Hanging ominously over the Gulf studies is the specter of the collapse of the Pacific herring fishery in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1993, four years after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. The federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment, or NRDA, is looking at some of the BP spill's potential effect on shrimp. BP has pledged to spend $1 billion on "early restoration" projects, with Louisiana in line to get $200 million, but the company and other parties responsible for the spill may eventually have to spend as much as $20 billion on natural resource projects.