Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by armor11 View Post
    Too bad it's not a published paper....you can always find some loons that hold a contrary opinion to established science.

    Here's a great video from an actual climate scientist that clarifies the issue of "natural cycles."

    Glad you found a cartoon to explain to you your own fake-science worldview. Must be so comfortable in your bubble of "settled science" based an a blip of recorded time. I assume it's like living with an extra chromosome, all hugs and smiles and Huey Lewis on repeat...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by armor11 View Post
      Too bad it's not a published paper....you can always find some loons that hold a contrary opinion to established science.

      Here's a great video from an actual climate scientist that clarifies the issue of "natural cycles."

      I want my 8 minutes back... That was a total waste of time. At least she was cuter than AlGore and not nearly as boring... He makes stupid videos too, you know...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        I want my 8 minutes back... That was a total waste of time. At least she was cuter than AlGore and not nearly as boring... He makes stupid videos too, you know...
        She is semi-qualified ...
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Hayhoe
        ... but still displays as one chasing the ACC/AGW Funding$$$ scam and her presentation is stilted/biased, selective on the "information" and excludes other relevant factors/data/details.

        Total puff cartoon for non-thinkers and reflects her minor interest/involvement in political science.
        Last edited by G David Bock; 14 Sep 17, 16:41.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          She is semi-qualified ...
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Hayhoe
          ... but still displays as one chasing the ACC/AGW Funding$$$ scam and her presentation is stilted/biased, selective on the "information" and excludes other relevant factors/data/details.

          Total puff cartoon for non-thinkers and reflects her minor intertest/involvement in political science.
          The problem with the video is that it is selective in the evidence it provides. She likely knows there are other things involved beyond the ones she brings up but doesn't include them because they don't fit the narrative she wants.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            The problem with the video is that it is selective in the evidence it provides. She likely knows there are other things involved beyond the ones she brings up but doesn't include them because they don't fit the narrative she wants.
            She's not being selective. She's pointedly demolishing the favored response of climate deniers to the steady increase in the avg global temperatures: it's just part of a natural cycle.

            For all practical purposes, the sun accounts for 100% of the energy our planet receives.

            Try to get this: solar radiation has been going DOWN for the last 50 years, and yet our planet continues to warm. Dramatically.

            The concept is really quite simple.
            "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
            -The President of the United States of America.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by armor11 View Post
              She's not being selective. She's pointedly demolishing the favored response of climate deniers to the steady increase in the avg global temperatures: it's just part of a natural cycle.

              For all practical purposes, the sun accounts for 100% of the energy our planet receives.

              Try to get this: solar radiation has been going DOWN for the last 50 years, and yet our planet continues to warm. Dramatically.

              The concept is really quite simple.
              But, for what reason(s)? For example, she left off the increasing rate of CH4 and CO2 from natural causes due to retreat of permafrost and glaciation. That can be from a natural feedback cycle, not necessarily from human activity.

              She gives the pat answers that the Gorebal Warming crowd want to give, nothing more.

              The concept is really quite simple. There's more to climate change than one thing causing it: CO2. The reality is many things drive climate change.

              Worse, the proposed solutions coming from primarily the Progressive Left are the same pat answers and canards: Switch to "renewable" fuels that aren't renewable like wind and solar. Move to battery powered vehicles. Adopt mass transit. Increase urban density to create more "natural" land, to name a few.

              For example, the Leftist environmentalist front despises and loathes nuclear power, the one actual, viable, alternative to coal and oil there is. Hydrogen fuel cells for cars are ignored in favor of batteries that don't work and never will.

              It all reeks of a political agenda rather than a scientific one. Her video only feeds to that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                The concept is really quite simple. There's more to climate change than one thing causing it: CO2. The reality is many things drive climate change.
                We're talking about the current climate change. The current warming. Not "every possible thing that could ever affect long term climate trends over the entire history of the planet."

                As was pointed out in the video, the Earth should be heading toward another ice age. That would be the "natural" cycle. But it's not. It's heating up.

                See? If left to it's own "natural cycles," the Earth should be cooling. But instead, it's heating up.

                Get the idea?

                Worse, the proposed solutions coming from primarily the Progressive Left are the same pat answers and canards: Switch to "renewable" fuels that aren't renewable like wind and solar. Move to battery powered vehicles. Adopt mass transit. Increase urban density to create more "natural" land, to name a few.
                Don't blame the people with the solutions when you refuse to even admit there's a problem. Blame the conservative policy makers that are uninterested in coming up with better solutions.

                Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for being on the wrong side of history...again.
                "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
                -The President of the United States of America.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                  We're talking about the current climate change. The current warming. Not "every possible thing that could ever affect long term climate trends over the entire history of the planet."

                  As was pointed out in the video, the Earth should be heading toward another ice age. That would be the "natural" cycle. But it's not. It's heating up.
                  And, how can we know that for sure? Our data on planetary weather was pretty sketchy up to less than 50 years ago. We only discovered the jet stream in the 1930's. We had no idea about how the Earth's magnetic field interacted with solar radiation until the 60's.
                  We hadn't even mapped the bottoms of the oceans until the 70's.
                  Plate tectonics? The 60's.
                  Yet, you want me to buy that these scientists really know what the weather on this planet was like in geologic terms when they can't even predict what it will be two weeks from now accurately?

                  See? If left to it's own "natural cycles," the Earth should be cooling. But instead, it's heating up.
                  That's one person's, or a segment of science's opinion. They can't even model what the temperature will do 10 years from now accurately... and we have about 4 decades of evidence to show the modelling is terrible... and you want me to buy people saying that should be believed.

                  Get the idea?


                  Don't blame the people with the solutions when you refuse to even admit there's a problem. Blame the conservative policy makers that are uninterested in coming up with better solutions.

                  Conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for being on the wrong side of history...again.
                  It's historically the Left that's been wrong. Pretty close to 100% wrong, and about everything.

                  But, that aside, I will "blame" people for idiotic and wrong solutions when there are clearly obvious alternatives that do work.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                    She's not being selective. She's pointedly demolishing the favored response of climate deniers to the steady increase in the avg global temperatures: it's just part of a natural cycle.

                    For all practical purposes, the sun accounts for 100% of the energy our planet receives.

                    Try to get this: solar radiation has been going DOWN for the last 50 years, and yet our planet continues to warm. Dramatically.

                    The concept is really quite simple.
                    Anytime someone says it's all very simple you can assume they are a charlatan.

                    Photosynthetic efficiency may add 2 percent to the earth's energy budget as just one example of the complexity of studying climate. All the current models are absurdly simplistic and likely have an error margin as great as actual warming.

                    The left has proven by way of the historical record to pervert empathy into attitudes that are not conscientious. No practical solution to global warming has ever been devised which renders most discussions on the topic merely virtue signaling and the promotion of moral panic which can be used for political purposes.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      The geologist speaking to this Washington State Legislative committee is a well known and credible expert on geology and climate whom provides data and facts that dispute ACC/AGW.

                      His webpage from WWU;
                      http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/

                      And his Wiki page;
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook

                      EXCERPT:
                      ...
                      In 2013, Easterbrook argued before the Washington State Senate Committee on Climate Change that peer-reviewed data showing global warming had been “tampered with by NOAA and NASA.” In the same presentation, he also said that ”CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming,” and that “Global warming ended in 1998.” [40]
                      Stance on Climate Change

                      March 26, 2013
                      • “Global warming ended in 1998. […] There has been no global warming in 15 years.” [40]
                      • “The Antarctic ice sheet is not melting […] the main ice sheet is in fact growing. […] ” [40]
                      • “CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming.” [40]
                      • “Severe storms are not more frequent than normal.” [40]
                      • “We're in for about 25 - 30 years of global cooling.” [40]

                      May, 2008
                      “We are entering a solar cycle of much reduced sunspots, very similar to that which accompanied the change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, which virtually all scientists agree was caused by solar variation. Thus, we seem to be headed for cooler temperatures as a result of reduced solar irradiance.” [2]
                      ...
                      https://www.desmogblog.com/don-easterbrook
                      (Note, this is a "pro" ACC/AGW website - )
                      Don Easterbrook was the author of my geomorphology text book... and Reid Bryson a coauthor of my physical geography text book...




                      It was my first introduction to climatology. Reid Bryson was known as the "father of scientific climatology" and a prominent AGW skeptic...



                      This is what it had to say about the so-called greenhouse effect...



                      One mention of the so-called greenhouse effect... This was only 14 years before Al Gore and James Hansen "invented" Anthropogenic Gorebal Warming.



                      "As a planet, the Earth is not warming or cooling appreciably on average..."

                      The book was published in 1974.

                      Green = "not warming or cooling appreciably on average"
                      Red = Gorebal Warming crisis.



                      The rate of warming from 1975-2010 is almost identical to the rate of.warming from 1910-1945 (smack in the middle of "not warming or cooling appreciably on average" climate).





                      Green = "not warming or cooling appreciably on average"
                      Red = Gorebal Warming crisis.

                      Green ≈ Red

                      Therfore AGW is

                      QED

                      The warming observed in the instrumental temperature record doesn’t significantly deviate from the pre-existing Holocene pattern of climate change.



                      30-yr running averages of NH reconstruction and instrumental data were used to reflect climatology rather than weather. Over the past 2,000 years, the average temperature of the northern hemisphere has exceeded natural variability* (+/-2 std dev) 3 times: The Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the modern warming. Humans didn’t cause at least two of the three and the current one only exceeds natural variability only by about 0.2 °C. And this is a maximum, because the instrumental data have much higher resolution than the proxy data.

                      *Natural variability does not imply that excursions from it are unnatural.

                      Taking the climate back through the rest of the Holocene, we can see that “the hottest year on record” might not be so hot from any climate-relevant perspective.



                      Regarding “the hottest year on record” meme…


                      Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02 C to become the warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Because the margin of error is about 0.10 C, this would technically be a statistical tie, with a higher probability that 2016 was warmer than 1998. The main difference was the extra warmth in the Northern Hemisphere in 2016 compared to 1998.

                      “The question is, does 2016’s record warmth mean anything scientifically?” Christy said. “I suppose the answer is, not really. Both 1998 and 2016 are anomalies, outliers, and in both cases we have an easily identifiable cause for that anomaly: A powerful El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event. While El Niños are natural climatic events, they also are transient. In the study of climate, we are more concerned with accurately identifying long-term temperature trends than we are with short-term spikes and dips, especially when those spikes and dips have easily identified natural causes.

                      Science Daily

                      Furthermore, climate is much more than weather patterns over 30-yr periods.

                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/...about-nuclear/
                      Last edited by The Doctor; 15 Sep 17, 07:16.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • I love watching the ignorant try an argue a point using ill-informed cartoons and an overall lack of intelligence and experience to support their argument...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Armored Fist View Post
                          I love watching the ignorant try an argue a point using ill-informed cartoons and an overall lack of intelligence and experience to support their argument...
                          What are your qualifications?

                          What ever they are no one is impressed by someone regurgitating the dogma.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            What are your qualifications?

                            What ever they are no one is impressed by someone regurgitating the dogma.
                            Be careful regurgitating dogma because it usually lands all over your karma...

                            Comment


                            • The thing is..

                              If the Global Warming Crowd are wrong (premature) then......what? The economy slows down and well that's it. I was born in the 80's, my parents grew up in the 70's, a shite economy didn't harm me or them (too much).

                              If the Global Warming Crowd are right then.... then we are heading for cataclysmic changes that human civilisation will be largely helpless to prevent.

                              And I'm sorry but this isn't Hollywood, the young rogue scientist isn't going to prove the Doom-sayer establishment wrong, especially when he seems to be funded by oil companies........

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                                The thing is..

                                If the Global Warming Crowd are wrong (premature) then......what? The economy slows down and well that's it. I was born in the 80's, my parents grew up in the 70's, a shite economy didn't harm me or them (too much).
                                More like the global economy tanks. The push for increasing urbanization and use of public transit while pushing to eliminate the individual car means less social and economic mobility for most people. That limits their choices and in turn their ability to rise socially or economically.

                                If the Global Warming Crowd are right then.... then we are heading for cataclysmic changes that human civilisation will be largely helpless to prevent.

                                And I'm sorry but this isn't Hollywood, the young rogue scientist isn't going to prove the Doom-sayer establishment wrong, especially when he seems to be funded by oil companies........
                                But, to date, the Gorebal Warming crowd have been nearly 100% wrong on all their modelling and predictions.

                                https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...rming-industry

                                http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/...t-predictions/

                                When they get a track record that comes close to what a decent psychic can achieve, maybe I'll pay a little attention to them.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X