Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
    And some of them are just plain batshitcrazy.
    Especially the ones whom engage in one line posts (to plump their post counts?! ) that consist of ad homineums, non-pithy, non-witty, and non-insightful (a polite way of say non-intelligent) drivel.

    But why break your track-record to date?

    BTW, long as you've been here, you should know better.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
    Present Current Events are the Future's History

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
      I already posted a link to the University of California, San Diego's statement on this issue. I'll post it again in case you didn't see it:

      http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/06_3.shtml

      From the Article:


      In terms of short-term solar changes, the only 'cycle' of note is the 11-year "sunspot cycle," which, well... I'll let the article do the talking
      So, "BobTheBarbarian", using your source;
      http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/06_3.shtml
      But bolding something else;
      ...
      The Last 25 Years
      Lean�s study found that "solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970". However, lest we take unwarranted comfort from the fact that the Sun seems most important and anthropogenic warming is less than originally estimated, keep in mind that if the Sun controls substantial climate fluctuations by changing its brightness by only 0.25%, a change of more than 1 percent in �virtual brightness� (from trace greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4) could have a considerably greater impact. The fact is we do not know for sure which will have the greater effect, but it is well to remember that the reconstruction of sunspots, their relationship to solar energy output, and the link to overall background brightness are areas of science that are still changing. Thus, solar contributions may be much less (or a somewhat more) than those currently estimated. In any case, the conclusion that can be taken from this discussion is that the warming since 1975 is outside the range of a purely solar effect and may safely be ascribed to a strong anthropogenic "

      Yet your author reaches for a subjective and seemingly politically motivated conclusion. ...

      So much for "science" from the American Political Leftest!
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
      Present Current Events are the Future's History

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        Especially the ones whom engage in one line posts (to plump their post counts?! ) that consist of ad homineums, non-pithy, non-witty, and non-insightful (a polite way of say non-intelligent) drivel.
        Then why do you keep doing all that?
        Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
        Hyperwar, Whats New
        World War II Resources
        The best place in the world to "work".

        Comment


        • #79
          I will post an extended response at a more opportune time.

          Meanwhile, can we all please refrain from personal attacks unrelated to the topic? This is how flame wars start and threads get closed.
          I've seen it happen dozens of times, and it would be in everyone's best interests to cut the personal jabs before it gets out of hand.
          Thank you all for listening

          -Bob
          Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
            I will post an extended response at a more opportune time.

            Meanwhile, can we all please refrain from personal attacks unrelated to the topic? This is how flame wars start and threads get closed.
            I've seen it happen dozens of times, and it would be in everyone's best interests to cut the personal jabs before it gets out of hand.
            Thank you all for listening

            -Bob
            It appears that ad homs are quite okay here.
            Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
            Hyperwar, Whats New
            World War II Resources
            The best place in the world to "work".

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
              I will post an extended response at a more opportune time.

              Meanwhile, can we all please refrain from personal attacks unrelated to the topic? This is how flame wars start and threads get closed.
              I've seen it happen dozens of times, and it would be in everyone's best interests to cut the personal jabs before it gets out of hand.
              Thank you all for listening

              -Bob
              Who died and left you in charge? We happen to enjoy insulting one another.

              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                Who died and left you in charge? We happen to enjoy insulting one another.

                Q.E.D.
                Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
                Hyperwar, Whats New
                World War II Resources
                The best place in the world to "work".

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
                  It appears that ad homs are quite okay here.
                  Argumentum ad hominem, particularly the conditional variety, is one of the only three arrows in Team Gorebot's quiver of logic. Argumentum ad populum and verecundiam would be all they had left if ad hominem arguments were banned.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
                    Q.E.D.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      Oh, I wouldn't dream of messing with a guy who has the nerve to wear this outfit to his office.

                      Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
                      Hyperwar, Whats New
                      World War II Resources
                      The best place in the world to "work".

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                        Funny, I guess the fact that every single country in the world, including the United States, ratified the 2012 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change now means that the entire human race lacks basic common sense.
                        Remember this?



                        Or maybe this?



                        or this?

                        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...679C946990D6CF

                        perhaps this?

                        “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                        --Salmon P. Chase

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Its all politics whether it be academia politics or government politics. Anyone with common sense can see that not being able to predict the weather even 5 days out pretty much sums up the accuracy in what scientist can predict 30-40 years from now. To answer the OP. Yes global warming is a hoax.
                          “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                          --Salmon P. Chase

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            QUOTE:
                            The "meat" of the debate, revolves around the one part of CO2 retaining enough heat to raise the heat retention of the 2,499 other relative parts of the atmosphere to a point where the biosphere is threatened with degradation. Math, science, logic, and common sense say such can't and isn't the case. Burden of PROOF lies upon you and other pro-ACC/AGW ("gorebots") to provide convincing evidence that what is an essential life necessity to about 99% of lifeforms on Earth is harmful to same, produced SOLELY by humans, and in need of reduction.

                            If such is real and true, could be summarized in a few paragraphs and "charts/graphs" but haven't seen such yet.

                            I'm note sure(convinced) you, or the others, really grasp the scope of what's under consideration ~ debate here

                            EXCERPT:
                            ...
                            Global biomass

                            Estimates for the global biomass of species and higher level groups are not always consistent across the literature. Apart from bacteria, the total global biomass has been estimated at about 560 billion tonnes C.[1] Most of this biomass is found on land, with only 5 to 10 billion tonnes C found in the oceans.[1] On land, there is about 1,000 times more plant biomass (phytomass) than animal biomass (zoomass). About 18% of this plant biomass is eaten by the land animals.[13] However, in the ocean, the animal biomass is nearly 30 times larger than the plant biomass.[14] Most ocean plant biomass is eaten by the ocean animals.[13]
                            ...
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29


                            Once again, what is it, why do you and so many in support of ACC/AGW hate about 99.9% of life on this planet and want to harm and degrade it?!



                            Reduce an already scarce essential life ingredient (CO2) that biomass depends upon to exist?




                            AND:
                            In a nutshell; " ... Forest ecosystems thrive in warmer, carbon-rich climates... " as do most of the rest of the 99.9% of life on this planet. Yet the "gorebots" say we have to reduce levels of CO2 to "save the planet(biosphere)" even though it's clear doing such will extinguish more Life than it saves.!!!

                            These "people" really hate life and 'Mother Earth', but fail to grasp the idiocy of their beliefs.

                            [In exo-biology, the more carbon a world/planet has, the better odds it might have and sustain 'Life'. ]

                            http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...139117&page=53
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                            Present Current Events are the Future's History

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              EXCERPT:
                              ....

                              The late Gerard Bond, marine geologist and professor from Columbia University, analyzed climate reconstructions of the North American deep-sea sediment cores, and found that “the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long.”

                              Bond surmised through decades of research that variations in solar activity – the appearance of sunspots and changes in the emission of solar radiation – were directly causing measurable effects on the Earth’s global temperature. The heating and cooling of the Earth coincided with the activity of the sun.

                              The sun determines the Earth’s temperature, as proven from real-world observations over the past 10,000 years.

                              With the introduction of man-made carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere beginning in the 1850s, the CO2 level has only risen 11 percent; which is nearly negligible.

                              Empirical data has shown that pre-industrial carbon emissions were dependent on solar activity. This global warming was estimated by scientists as 1 degree Celsius. As far as the IPCC is concerned, this statistic could, and has, been manipulated to justify their agenda.

                              However, the account of the solar magnetic fields doubling over the last 100 years was completely ignored because it disavowed their scheme to blame carbon dioxide levels on human influences.

                              Solar activity, CO2 levels and Earth’s surface temperature are interlaced factors defining climate parameters. As modern man has been using fossil fuels which disburse carbon dioxide, it made perfect sense for the IPCC to turn this obvious fact into an attack on man through fear-mongering and propaganda while suppressing natural processes.

                              The infamous computer models used by the IPCC to justify their claims that CO2 levelsare a direct causation of anthropogenic impact and regard solar influence as negligible. The IPCC inserts an “unknown amplifying mechanism” to explain away observed solar activity and its effect on the Earth’s overall temperature.

                              Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist, has devised a computer model that takes into account the sun’s direct influence on the Earth. While his research is still in its infancy, the projections promise to clarify how much of an influence the sun truly has.

                              Vanrenholt asks:
                              The IPCC’s current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?
                              Considering how weak an influence CO2 is on the climate, as observational data concludes that it would only generate “a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2”, the IPCC’s assumptions are over-blown. They fail to include water vapor and cloud effects which intensify solar amplification. CO2 needs an amplifier to become the aggressive agitator that the IPCC would have everyone believe.

                              The alarmist assertions that temperatures will rise to 4.5 degrees Celsius by a magical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is scientifically unfounded.
                              ....
                              http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/...U5h8KUTdom7.99
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                              Present Current Events are the Future's History

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Again, as with yesterday, my schedule prevents me from giving a detailed response until later, but you guys bring up a few interesting (if a bit misguided) points.

                                For one thing, thanks to all posters (in particular G David Bock and Savez) for citing actual evidence this time, instead of just opinions.

                                With regard to AGW and animal life, the situation pertains to the organisms of the here and now, and their inability to adapt rapidly enough to the pace of climate change AGW is contributing to.

                                BTW, this is more than just the 'save the Polar Bears' spiel that many are preaching about (Polar Bears actually do not truly constitute their own separate species, they are more a subgroup of Brown Bears).

                                With regard to the sun, G David Bock is mostly correct in terms of the sun's effect on the climate, but he cites this information out of context (again, I will expound upon these issues later.)

                                The "Global Cooling" craze of the '70s was largely media hyping a group of scientists that was even then in the minority (much of my response will be dedicated to this topic).

                                I will get back to you in about 7 hours...
                                Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X