How Global Warming Really Works

[Sean Renaud]

Fair point...that was a bit of a hyperbolic example...

Do you think Eskimos would die if we sent them to Hawaii?

I think the current weather patterns may not be ideal but it's a known winner.

Also there is lots of settled science in the world.

 

[Que]

I think the current weather patterns may not be ideal but it's a known winner.

Also there is lots of settled science in the world.

A "winner" for whom, and compared to what?

The USSR would not have had to import so much US grain if the steppes a longer growing season.

More CO2 in the air will increase plant growth and therby crop yields.

How about higher sea levels...what will more surface areas and therefore higher amounts of evaporation do to precipitation?

All that settled too?

The only thing that is settled is that the earth is shown to go through cycles of temperature variance. Greenhouse gases may contribute to warming trends (when and if we start seeing that). Man's activities produce greenhouse gases.

We have no idea what happens if CO2 increases. Maybe plankton thrives and fish choke. Maybe deserts become viable for crops again and absorb CO2...Maybe humans drown and that is the way the earth puts itself back in balance.

The most alarmist scientists on the planet are talking about changes of a few degrees in 100 years. Yet this, and GMO's are the most critical things facing mankind. More important than wars over energy...more important than future war over fresh water...more important than long term energy solutions like research into fast breeders...

People that worship this crap are imbeciles.

 

[thør]

A "winner" for whom, and compared to what?

The USSR would not have had to import so much US grain if the steppes a longer growing season.

More CO2 in the air will increase plant growth and therby crop yields.

How about higher sea levels...what will more surface areas and therefore higher amounts of evaporation do to precipitation?

All that settled too?

The only thing that is settled is that the earth is shown to go through cycles of temperature variance. Greenhouse gases may contribute to warming trends (when and if we start seeing that). Man's activities produce greenhouse gases.

We have no idea what happens if CO2 increases. Maybe plankton thrives and fish choke. Maybe deserts become viable for crops again and absorb CO2...Maybe humans drown and that is the way the earth puts itself back in balance.

The most alarmist scientists on the planet are talking about changes of a few degrees in 100 years. Yet this, and GMO's are the most critical things facing mankind. More important than wars over energy...more important than future war over fresh water...more important than long term energy solutions like research into fast breeders...

People that worship this crap are imbeciles.

Another positive: England gets wetter.

 

[trysail]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/treemometer_mann.jpg


​

 

[trysail]

...it should be recognized that the basis for a climate that is highly sensitive to added greenhouse gasses is solely the computer models. The relation of this sensitivity to catastrophe, moreover, does not even emerge from the models, but rather from the fervid imagination of climate activists...

–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences​

​

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

A "winner" for whom, and compared to what?

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/2014/05/map_climate_change_vulnerability/1106a9a5e.jpg

 

[Que]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/2014/05/map_climate_change_vulnerability/1106a9a5e.jpg

And so your answer is the least vulnerable (us) should make herculean efforts to have minimal effect on global CO2 output?

PS...you sure do like nonsensical graphics with inadequate legends and no supporting documentation, don't you?

Vulnerable to what, exactly?

Melting gummy bears?

Drowned Polar Bears washing ashore?

 

[Ishmael]

And so your answer is the least vulnerable (us) should make herculean efforts to have minimal effect on global CO2 output?

PS...you sure do like nonsensical graphics with inadequate legends and no supporting documentation, don't you?

Vulnerable to what, exactly?

Melting gummy bears?

Drowned Polar Bears washing ashore?

Strong argument to invade and take over all those 'intermediate' and worse nations. Gotta save the world ya know?

Ishmael

 

[phrodeau]

And so your answer is the least vulnerable (us) should make herculean efforts to have minimal effect on global CO2 output?

PS...you sure do like nonsensical graphics with inadequate legends and no supporting documentation, don't you?

Vulnerable to what, exactly?

Melting gummy bears?

Drowned Polar Bears washing ashore?

What is your answer? "I got mine and they can go to hell"?

There's a very good word for that attitude - inhuman.

 

[phrodeau]

I suppose I can do everybody's homework today.

Here is the S&P report: http://twitdoc.com/upload/lisa_nuge...-mega-trend-for-sovereign-risk-15-may-14-.pdf

 

[Que]

What is your answer? "I got mine and they can go to hell"?

There's a very good word for that attitude - inhuman.

Send your assets and any income above $600/year to:

C/O Somalian Embassy
426 E 61st Street
Suite 702
New York, NY 10021
Washington, D.C.

 

[Que]

No?

You prefer the government take from me instead at the point of the IRS's police power and give it to the UN to give to them?

That is KIND of like charity.

As soon as Liberals start donating even 25% of the amounts that Conservatives do per capita, I will CONSIDER listening to anything that cry-me-a-river, but do-nothing liberals have to say about the less fortunate.

In short, I know what i do to help my fellowman, and I know statistically speaking how little you do, so FUCK OFF!

 

[trysail]

The abuse of science and scientific method by the activists who hijacked climate change as a means to achieve their political purposes is highly offensive and reprehensible.


It will take decades for climatology's credibility to be restored.




​

 

[phrodeau]

The abuse of science and scientific method by the activists who hijacked climate change as a means to achieve their political purposes is highly offensive and reprehensible.


It will take decades for climatology's credibility to be restored.




​

Especially with you around. Maybe you should fuck off.

 

[Que]

The abuse of science and scientific method by the activists who hijacked climate change as a means to achieve their political purposes is highly offensive and reprehensible.


It will take decades for climatology's credibility to be restored.




​

Some of the work is valid and needs to be heeded.

It was never about global warming. Neither is the "sustainability" movement. It is about getting us all into master-planned cities in the next 25-50 years where we are easier to control, and to take the resources outside those areas and 'redistribute' it fairly.

The POINT to global warming and the carbon emission 'banks" was never to reduce the amount of carbon, just provide a mechanism for a world-wide tax to then give to the underdeveloped countries.

The rationale predated the "science" It went like this:

What is the best way to predict the emerging wealth of a nation? It's energy usage.

Find a way to tax and re-distribute that and over time all nations are equally funded.

 

[Que]

Especially with you around. Maybe you should fuck off.

Because scientific method precludes questions being asked?

The QUESTIONS are causing a credibility gap, not the ANSWERS of course.

 

[trysail]

When it was warming, the reason was CO2 and climate was simple;
now that it’s not warming, the reason isn’t known and climate is complex.





http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif



​

 

[phrodeau]

Because scientific method precludes questions being asked?

The QUESTIONS are causing a credibility gap, not the ANSWERS of course.

Trysail doesn't ask sensible questions. He is also trying to convince us that warming has stopped, when it hasn't.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/solar-variability.gif

 

[imalickin]

Trysail doesn't ask sensible questions. He is also trying to convince us that warming has stopped, when it hasn't.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/solar-variability.gif

So did you look at your graph or just throw it up there to try and prove a point?

You graph shows a downward trend in temperature after 2004 the same as Trysails.

What's your point?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

A "winner" for whom, and compared to what?

The USSR would not have had to import so much US grain if the steppes a longer growing season.

More CO2 in the air will increase plant growth and therby crop yields.

How about higher sea levels...what will more surface areas and therefore higher amounts of evaporation do to precipitation?

All that settled too?

The only thing that is settled is that the earth is shown to go through cycles of temperature variance. Greenhouse gases may contribute to warming trends (when and if we start seeing that). Man's activities produce greenhouse gases.

We have no idea what happens if CO2 increases. Maybe plankton thrives and fish choke. Maybe deserts become viable for crops again and absorb CO2...Maybe humans drown and that is the way the earth puts itself back in balance.

The most alarmist scientists on the planet are talking about changes of a few degrees in 100 years. Yet this, and GMO's are the most critical things facing mankind. More important than wars over energy...more important than future war over fresh water...more important than long term energy solutions like research into fast breeders...

People that worship this crap are imbeciles.

Scientists have proved exactly what happens when CO2 increases.

 

[Que]

Scientists have proved exactly what happens when CO2 increases.

OK. than that's all settled then.

Trysail's graph probably just shows how unreliable thermometers have gotten lately.

Phrodeu's probably just shows that nothing but CO2 has any effect on mean temperature.

Done and done.

Thanks for helping me understand this (now) simple issue.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

OK. than that's all settled then.

Trysail's graph probably just shows how unreliable thermometers have gotten lately.

Phrodeu's probably just shows that nothing but CO2 has any effect on mean temperature.

Done and done.

Thanks for helping me understand this (now) simple issue.

Oh, you just deny settled science.

Both graphs shows that temperatures are increasing.

 

[Que]

Oh, you just deny settled science.

Both graphs shows that temperatures are increasing.

Reading charts isn't your strength, is it?

 

[Que]

good thing we put it to a "vote' and that the methodology for that spurious claim is so transparent...

The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Reading charts isn't your strength, is it?

You must be reading different charts.

One graph shows an increase in temperature since 1960. The other shows an increase since 1980. It's not really something you can argue about.