- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
A vast global conspiracy.
strawman as usual.
Climate change is a real scientific term that has a real meaning other than the one AGW want to give it. the fact is the earths climate is supposed to change.
if it didn't then we would be in real trouble. AGW on the other than is a theory nothing more.
however because people didn't buy into the theory of AGW the zealots tried to hijack a real scientific term and started calling it climate change.
this is a dishonest tactic by people that can't prove their original theory.
the more real scientists other than the IPCC look into it the more and more info we get that well it isn't the doom and gloom scenario that AGW zealots would have
us believe.
You'll have to be more specific. I don't see any post "above" that suggests anything other than you pulling stats out of your...I only LOL @ people who pull stats out of their ass. See above.
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
An invitation to participate in the survey
was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
With 3146 individuals completing the survey,
the participant response rate for the
survey was 30.7%.
Approximately 5% of
the respondents were climate scientists,
and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that
more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications
in the past 5 years have been on the
subject of climate change.
Well that would be none, obviously.
1) Is man burning fossil fuels that in turn release CO2 that is not currently part of the natural atmospheric (and oceanic, too, for that matter) CO2 cycle?
2) Does said CO2 have IR active vibrational modes?
3) If your answer to 1 and 2 is yes, then it isn't "bunkum"
H2O easily leaves the atmosphere.
In fact its net residence time is typically 1% or less of CO2.
But you knew that. You know what to do next, right?. Integrals.
Reid Bryson, one of the founders of modern climatology, first coined the term global warming in the 70's. WECN May 2007 We are living in an interglacial period where temperatures are moderate. The climate swings from warmer to much colder over the millennia. Climate is complex and we have only recently gotten the tools to accurately measure it. We are still trying to figure out what to do with the data.
You are right that AGW is a theory. It's not settled science and while tracking consensus is interesting in a very limited way, it has nothing to do with validation of the theory. We don't get to vote on theories, They require proof.
But in order to justify its existence the IPCC has been grossly exaggerating the atmospheric CO2 residence time if we compare its guesstimates with the published literature on the subject. Its when I discovered stuff like this was going on and started checking some of the other claims being made for AGW that I became a skeptic.
View attachment 67183660
View attachment 67183661
Of course the climate changes, and would do so even if humans had never evolved, I suspect. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the climate is changing for the worse due in any part to human activity. And there are plenty of scientific studies suggesting it does.
If there isn't a perfect climate, than there is no "worse".
Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!!
Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!!
Before you start frothing and foaming, explain to us, in your own words, what the global warming issue is all about.
Reason is that konservatives have a long-standing tendency (both in this forum and in life) of talking out of their asses, i. e. trying to comment on topics/comprehend they don't even comprehend.
they can't even accurately measure it. only 3 of their 200 models actually correctly track observed temperatures. all the other models are so far off by their bias toward co2 that it makes it laughable that they can present this as any real science.
I am just noting a fact that AGW is not climate change. it is a totally separate theory and it shows the dishonesty of these zealots that they try and hijack another term to push their agenda.
Yes it has.
You read your link and a bunch of holes should have jumped off the screen ...
What's "significant?"
TRANSLATION: A third who were asked to participate actually participated, of them hardly any were climate scientists, and those that did participate have a vested career interest in promoting AGW.
The Earth has had periods where the CO2 levels have been at least 8 times todays levels. Those periods coincided with the greatest flourishing of all life on the planet. The optimum level for plant growth is currently three times that of today at around 1200 PPM
Academic as we do not currently know the climate sensitivity of CO2 ergo any values put into climate models are pure guesswork. Given how wildly out of kilter those models are with observed reality those guesses have obviously been far too high
perhaps in your alternative universe where CO2 has IR inactive modes and works to decrease the net energy budget of the atmosphereOf course it is
Here's more brilliance from the global warming preachers.
http://www.weather.com/news/news/texas-tornado-severe-storm
Uh, no, folks at weather.com, this is not the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. This is in rural Texas.
Climate/weather experts should be able to read a map.
Before you start frothing and foaming, explain to us, in your own words, what the global warming issue is all about.
Reason is that konservatives have a long-standing tendency (both in this forum and in life) of talking out of their asses, i. e. trying to comment on topics/comprehend they don't even comprehend.
and what have levels been that sustained the climate whereby it was possible to build the major "western" population centers of the world?
so do you think CO2 has IR active modes, or not? yes? or no?.
perhaps in your alternative universe where CO2 has IR inactive modes and works to decrease the net energy budget of the atmosphere
Obviously had CO2 levels been much higher the major population centers you speak of would have been far better able to feed themselves than they are today through increased crop yields. This short film gives a graphic demonstration of the great benefits of extra CO2 on plant life.
Before you start frothing and foaming, explain to us, in your own words, what the global warming issue is all about.
Reason is that konservatives have a long-standing tendency (both in this forum and in life) of talking out of their asses, i. e. trying to comment on topics/comprehend they don't even comprehend.
1) try reading. those western population centers are where crops have high yield
2) LMAO @ not understanding hypercapnia and then posting on and on.......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?