Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- PonyBoy-1
I'm having a tire-burning party this weekend if anyone is interested...
- yurimon-4
- yurimon-3
its official end/ earth shifted
- denier!!georgesIII
- Its official... Global Warming is a Hoax!utopian
- GeorgesII-7
be weary of article that use words like "might have been" then when you read the article nowhere does it explains where they have pulled the 4000 years of,
in the sidebar it reads
"It was the hottest June-July-August since detailed record-keeping began in 1880"
then clickbaiter proceed to say
"Planet Earth has definitely experienced its hottest summer since detailed records have been kept, and according to scientists, it might have been the hottest in more than 4,000 years."
so it's 4k years or not, cnn is really reaching with the clickbait
here's the noaa report, which isn't too hard to understand,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/gl…
so noaa states
In Canada, Ontario had a record warm September. Temperatures were above average by up to 5°C (9°F) across the province.
[no time period given]The United States had its second warmest September on record, with a temperature 2.1°C (3.7°F) above the 20th century average. Record and near-record warmth spanned most of the country, with nine states in the Northeast, Midwest, and Southwest record warm.
[no time period given]The September temperature for Norway was 2.2°C (4.0°F) higher than the 1961–1990 average. This marks the sixth warmest September for the country since national records began in 1900. Parts of northern Norway and Trøndelag were 3–4°C (5–7°F) warmer than average.
[115 years record, nowhere near alarmist]It was the coldest September in Spain since 1996, at 0.8°C (1.4°F) below the 1981–2010 national average. Some areas of northern Spain were 1.5‐2.5°C (2.7–4.5°F) cooler than their monthly averages.
[so it was the coolest in spain, in 20 years]The United Kingdom also had a September temperature that was 0.8°C below the 1981–2010 average. England and Wales each observed their coolest September since 1994.
[coolest again]so they are reporting anomalies, but anomalies will only stay that, anomalies. if you can't give a timespan longer than 120 years, how can we honestly say these are anomalies?
- Are you drinking swamp gas again?utopian
- I noticed that global warming accepters don't ever read the article they link, so so sad. but it's ok, to say this was the hottest summers sinceGeorgesII
- the pyramid were being built, it's so ludicrous it hurts, this is why I linked to the actual source the article was based onGeorgesII
- btw how do you drink gas utopian? ehehheGeorgesII
- Don't let the warmists get to you Georges. There socialist agenda will be exposed soon enough. Upvoted.rouncey
- *Theirdetritus
- you lost my respect george... there I was thinking you were a proper Candadianhotroddy
- it's all a ploy to put pressure on china who is currently going trough an industrial revolution. it is a very convenient stance to take considering we don't relgilgamush
- rely on coal anymore. not sure where these indignant lemmings get off trying to make it a partisan issue thoughgilgamush
- drake-von-drake-4
Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jame…Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.
- Stop trolling troll!utopian
- You're really clueless aren't you. There are about 10 people here that DO NOT agree with your BSdrake-von-drake
- Name all 10 Yurimon.utopian
- lol @ Forbe's...that's like asking Exxon for it's top 10 list of lies as well.utopian
- and so are the lefty mags that support their agendas, let's face it. maybe not in your brain, but that's spot ondrake-von-drake
- ^ what utopian said ++moldero
- deathboy-4
Humans are of nature. What says our by products are not of nature too? Why do we look of nature in retrospect and not a equally changing and evolving system as much as us. We may choose economical solutions that harm our future, but we grow for now. Something about that is soooo millenial but is correct. We are a bit smarter in knowing we don't live as fodder for others. And can wave off traditional collective thinking. Our species is but a speck in time. The progress of all climate change rhetoric is purely out of special interests. And idea of controlling climate is absolutely absurd. However somehow those millenials got the catholic style guilt for living and hate themselves. I think people should ignore special interests and live in their best interests. And most importantly honestly with full understanding. Who's to say our trash or biomass wont be the oil for life hundreds of thousands of years after we kick it. Just do us and live as economically feasible as possible for all without arbitrary special interests. Just a thought from a guy who knows nature can handle her own shit.
- Watch the planet descend into inferno with the possibility of a reboot in 100,000 AD. What an empowering message, db.PeterPancake
- https://www.instagra…PeterPancake
- you're so high on your own erudition that you don't notice you're talking total nonsenseFax_Benson
- Hmm. I was hoping for a rebuttal about how we see what is natural. Might be a little world is flat view to only see what was before as naturaldeathboy
- to ignore our our role as larger process even if its our corpses. We study seasons and fruit fly, but hard to swallow we might just be a process as welldeathboy
- utopian-1
- TheBlueOne-2
"I'm just not willing to let political ideologues tell me what to believe and play on my emotions."
hahahhaha...HAHAHAHAHAHA...oh man, thank you for giving me the best laugh of the fucking week...
- TheBlueOne-2
I can't even begin to tell you how much you have come to bore the living shit out of me.
- yurimon-2
- pablo28-2
- janne76-2
blahblahblah
- drake-von-drake-4
Albeit non-anthropogenic (not exactly a cause of climate change), seems the invasive plant Kudzu is a cause for ozone layer depletion.https://www.sciencedaily.com/rel…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku…- Doesn't deplete ozone, makes ozone.detritus
- ^ you're right. increases of the pollutant surface ozonedrake-von-drake
- drake-von-drake-5
So that was China's ploy the entire time!
China wants ships to use faster Arctic route opened by global warming
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china…- Yeah this is interesting. Imagine if the next war was over control of the Arcticyuekit
- Who fucking knows, but there are loads of claims to the same oil-rich areas. The Chinese are the biggest violators of green laws out there man.drake-von-drake
- so dumbmoldero
- drake-von-drake-6
LMFAO!
Sanders' Energy Policies Would Actually Increase Global Warming
https://pjmedia.com/trending/201…“Wouldn’t those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil, and actually undermine your fight against global warming?” Errol Louis, one of the debate moderators, asked Sanders during Thursday’s debate in Brooklyn, New York.
“No, they wouldn’t,” Sanders shot back. He called for a massive increase in the use of renewable energy, especially solar power, and said that if the United States took the climate threat as seriously as it did the Nazis in World War II, the country could in a few years radically transform its entire energy system.
Energy analysts, if not Sanders supporters, view askance his proposals that could undermine the twin pillars of the progress that the United States has made. Fracking for natural gas has helped utilities mothball dirty coal plants. And nuclear power provides 20 percent of U.S. electricity — and all of it is emissions free. Both energy sources would be targeted by Sanders, yet very hard to replace.
“There is a basic reality here, which is that nuclear energy is the single-largest source of zero-emissions electricity in the United States,” Josh Freed, vice president of clean energy at Third Way, a centrist think tank, told Foreign Policy. “If you care about climate change, that should be a very significant influence on your policy.”
- zero emissions until that shit explodes, then you would wish they were only emissionsmoldero
- climate changes all the time. its a cycle.yurimon
- ^ undisputeddrake-von-drake
- pablo28-4
- youngdesigner-11
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
See a Wall Street Journal article here.MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.
MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.
More FACTS and MYTHS? See what Professor deFreitas has to say. Click here.
- fact 1 - what happens if you put an ice cube in your tea that's on fire, the tea cools down for a period before boiling up again. if it's not warming up nowBeeswax
- it's because you're melting your ice cubes.Beeswax
- Regardless of your view of cause, environmental problems and weather severity are on the rise and still need to be addressed in some form.ETM
- Even if it were 100% natural, we can work to not exacerbate the situation through better practices, and we still need to work to address the net results,ETM
- despite cause or origin.ETM
- ^ agreed.mugwart
- A lot of these "facts" are just not true at all.monospaced
- FACT: Putting the word "Fact" at the beginning of the sentence instantly makes it a true fact.Chimp
- Fact!mugwart
- MYTH: People Care.imbecile
- young dumb and full of cum!moldero
- Whatever you believe or not in human global warming... trying to reduce CO2 emission is not a bad idea. Precautionary principle...gonzalle
- yurimon-4
- pr2-7
This thread reads like a bunch of born-again Christians debating Bible verses or some orthodox Muslims arguing about virgins in heaven... You guys are way more religious than you believe yourself to be.
- you're more of an idiot than you believe yourself to be. so there's that for you to consider.imbecile
- the imbecile has spoken again...pr2
- Pr2, QBNs own Harvey Weinstein.soundoftreason
