« First « Previous Comments 6 - 45 of 45 Search these comments
The global warming hysteria has been disproven by facts.
In the last 18 years, the earth didnt' warm up. All of the gloom and doom "climate models" were wrong.
Many people are easily fooled, as are some physicists. They incorrectly assume that the earth is a rock/water sphere surrounded by an atmosphere. It's not, it's alive and adding a nutrient to a living plant system can increase the plants uptake of the nutrient.
I could have believed in the "danger" of global warming if the gas were anything but CO2. The reason I disbelieve the hysteria is that CO2 is a plant nutrient.
CO2 rise and temperature rise has in some areas increased phytoplankton growth which uptakes the carbon. This has been seen.
In other areas, more rainfall on savannahs had increased the plant growth which uptakes the CO2 also. The same was seen when they studied the redwood trees, that they were thriving with higher CO2 levels.
Other problems with the whole "science" of global warming is that the energy the earth receives is not constant.
1. the sun's output is not constant
2. the earth's axis is not contant
3. the earth's orbit is not constant
4. cosmic rays received by earth are not constant.
Another problem is that if the sun warmed the earth, more CO2 is produced without humans burning anything.
Here's a pic of the sun showing from a NYTimes article.
I'm not all that impressed.
Would you take it more seriously if it had a graph?
I would take it more serously if there were something more than some guy standing there saying trust me it's true. Some actual scientific work would be a nice start.
The global warming hysteria has been disproven by facts.
We should apply this line of thinking to everything:
Nothing bad will never-ever happen. Ever. And as far as we're concerned, we need not ever have any sort of discussion about anything that gets in the way of good ole conservative values. Let's just plod along and never come up with a plan for anything. Just so long as we can go nah-nah-nah-nah in the face of those pesky liberals who cares about facts?
No, since the energy the earth receives from the sun and space is not constant, it's impossible to prove how burning fossil fuel can affect its temperature.
Also, it's been measured that plants will take up CO2, it's not stuck in the atmosphere at all.
It is all irrelevant since China and India will do whatever they want to. Al Gore and John Kerry are not going to stop them.
it's impossible to prove how burning fossil fuel can affect its temperature.
Actually, its not and one can make such measurements in comparison to what occurs during large volcanic eruptions. When a Volcano erupts it spews a whole lot of particulate matter into the air and repeatedly its bee shown that depending on the size of the eruption the local area around the volcano will tend to have either a much warmer or colder temps. Particulate matter is what blocks the sun and cam also in turn trap heat.
With diesel and gas emissions, as well as various other pollutants that produce particulate matter the net result is the same, simply put- these particles create similar scenarios depending on their density.
edvard,
your notes about volcanic particles got me thinking...
I remember the panic about the concept of the Nuclear Winter... how just a handful of nukes would darken the planet, and cause an ice age.
I'm sure you know about "years without a summer" after volcanic catastrophes like krakatoa, etc. Even in recent years, Mt. Pinatubo moderated an otherwise sweltering 1990.
Just a few well placed nukes in some uninhabited place like Antarctica, deployed by an international consortium, might do the job. (Or hopefully, Israel/Iran won't already do the job in their own conflict).
Climate change is no doubt a larger health concern for the global good than the dispersal of the radionuclides from a handful of nukes.
Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say
or the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
you just dont want to deal with reality... there is nothing for us to do.
if your concerned about Global Warming... take a trip to China...
not our problem...
Graphs measure reality and you've ridiculed them.
The question is what reality?
perhaps it that 4.6 Billion Asians took the dump today. Yep..
there is your Green House effect.. somehow we are to blame
for the shit going on in Asia.
From Saturday 21 February 2004
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
I bet one could Googleize the latest report from the military.
It's Bush's fault.
From Saturday 21 February 2004
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
I bet one could Googleize the latest report from the military.
I'm not attacking you but I don't see how this paper is the smoking gun you are presenting it as. This paper is also nearly 15 years old, perhaps you have something more recent?
I'm attacking you but I don't see how this paper is the smoking gun you are presenting it as. This paper is also nearly 15 years old, perhaps you have something more recent?
It's Bush's fault.
Guess it was Bush some 8,200 years ago that caused climate change as well ? Nothing more than politics, with no real solutions...
"Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated."
This guy in the You Tube OP is just another conservative, Fox apparatchik, "chicken little liberal grant magnet" buzz kill.
Why does he hate profitable scientific hysteria? I bet he holds large positions in gas and oil.
Here's something the idiot media won't tell you. The Earth's temperature has always been regulated by the Sun's 11 year solar cycle, whereby it warms-up for 6 years and then cools-down for 5 years. You can't fight Mother Nature. We are just now finishing the Sun's 6 year warming cycle from 2008-2014. The sun will now cool-down from 2014-2019.
This Solar cycle has been documented for the past 200 years or more.
http://www.universetoday.com/103803/solar-cycle-24-on-track-to-be-the-weakest-in-100-years/
This Solar cycle has been documented for the past 200 years or more.
No point... its not inline with the Lefts agenda... they have their own so
called Science !
So anyone can post a video on Youtube and you believe what they're saying? Dude, go back to school, you're an innocent
Not that passes the logic test. If you or one of the other "believers" are a product of "school" I will pass.
So anyone can post a video on Youtube and you believe what they're saying? Dude, go back to school, you're an innocent
Not that passes the logic test. If you or one of the other "believers" are a product of "school" I will pass.
God forbid you listen to someone who learned through academic research or *gasp* read a book
No, the gold standard for quality scientific information is whatever is posted anonymously on an internet real estate forum.
Everyone knows that!
God forbid you listen to someone who learned through academic research or *gasp* read a book
The hoopla started with an inconvenient truth is that academic?
I like the link carrieon posted. Not as much hoopla, but has been quite good a predicting stuff for quite some...
God forbid you listen to someone who learned through academic research or *gasp* read a book
Even Academic researchers are full of self interest egos and political interest groups. Global warming in the USA or Europe today, is no more than self interest groups looking for a hand out, cronism.
Global warming isnt our fight.. we gave that up once we allowed Environmentalist to kill off our manufacturing and lost our factories
to China. Had we had manufacturing in the USA and Europe, than
we would have curtailed or fixed the problem long ago.
Bottom line.. if you have a problem with pollution, go see
India and China about it...
God forbid you listen to someone who learned through academic research or *gasp* read a book
The hoopla started with an inconvenient truth is that academic?
I like the link carrieon posted. Not as much hoopla, but has been quite good a predicting stuff for quite some...
Predicting damage to satellites and terrestrial electrical systems perhaps. Global climate change? Lets see some data where your favorite model fits later empirical data with a reasonable correlation.
God forbid you listen to someone who learned through academic research or *gasp* read a book
Even Academic researchers are full of self interest egos and political interest groups. Global warming in the USA or Europe today, is no more than self interest groups looking for a hand out, cronism.
Nice broad brush you have there.
thomaswong.1986 says
Global warming isnt our fight.. we gave that up once we allowed Environmentalist to kill off our manufacturing and lost our factories
to China. Had we had manufacturing in the USA and Europe, than
we would have curtailed or fixed the problem long ago.
Funny I thought it was evil unions and expensive American workers that forced the job creators to offshore. Instead its those damn dirty hippies!
Its all Nixon's fault!
thomaswong.1986 says
Bottom line.. if you have a problem with pollution, go see
India and China about it...
Or your neighborhood asshole who insists on using his charcoal grill every #"@$& day in the summer.
Oh wait, that's me!
Funny I thought it was evil unions and expensive American workers that forced the job creators to offshore. Instead its those damn dirty hippies!
A number of reasons why jobs left offshore, and certainly even those dirty hippes turned CEOs sing the same tune... even though they are Dems and Obama supporters..they echo the similar comments.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/steve-jobs-biography-obama_n_1022786.html
"You're headed for a one-term presidency," he (Steve Jobs) told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.
Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform." Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.
Nice broad brush you have there.
Sad but true from what I have seen during my life. I dont see many in Science try to balance out the need of the people and a healthy economy. They come off as being some lefty central planning nut case.
Or your neighborhood asshole who insists on using his charcoal grill every #"@$& day in the summer.
Oh wait, that's me!
Small fries... we had major forest fires for centuries and no one put them out..
Predicting damage to satellites and terrestrial electrical systems perhaps. Global climate change? Lets see some data where your favorite model fits later empirical data with a reasonable correlation.
Yup just like clock work. Look at the link by Carrion.
You guys bickering about the facts instead of solutions.
I still think an engineered solution of setting off some nukes in remote places not populated by humans to inject a calibrated amount of debris into the atmosphere will do the job. Dispersal of the radionuclides will be noise compared to what is dispersed already from various man made sources like Fukushima, etc. Climate change is a much more grave threat to overall global health.
In that case though we better hope a Krakatoa type event does not follow our solution.
Yup just like clock work. Look at the link by Carrion.
I did but you clearly have not. There is NO correlation with the global temperatures anywhere in his link. None at all.
You guys bickering about the facts instead of solutions.
I still think an engineered solution of setting off some nukes in remote places not populated by humans to inject a calibrated amount of debris into the atmosphere will do the job. Dispersal of the radionuclides will be noise compared to what is dispersed already from various man made sources like Fukushima, etc. Climate change is a much more grave threat to overall global health.
In that case though we better hope a Krakatoa type event does not follow our solution.
Fun facts:
2.1×10^17 J yield of the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever tested (50 megatons)
8×10^17 J estimated energy released by the eruption of the Indonesian volcano, Krakatoa, in 1883
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29
I was watching a documentary where the designer of the Tsar Bomba was interviewed. The 50Mt Tsar Bomba test yield was smaller than the bomb's design allowed for - it had been dialed back to allow the bomber crew a chance to escape the explosion (even at 60 miles away the aircraft was hit hard by the shock wave). That bomb was designed to go up to 100Mt. He claimed the design could have gone much, much more powerful but at volumes above 100Mt the column breeches the atmosphere and the extra energy is simply dissipated to space. So yes it is possible to make a SINGLE H bomb more powerful than the 1883 Krakatoa explosion.
Gotta love human ingenuity!
There is NO correlation with the global temperatures anywhere in his link. None at all.
The main factor is that if a politician is saying it you know it is a lie. Where would this trope be if not for Al Gore?
Consult the farmer almanac it is based on the same thing
"Absent from most headlines about global warming is a discussion of measures suggesting that the warming has ceased and a cooling may have begun. For example, deep-ocean heat content has not increased during the past five years. Looking at just one year, from January 2007 to January 2008, we find that satellite-derived atmospheric temperatures indicate that Earth was about one degree Fahrenheit cooler at the beginning of 2008 than it was at the beginning of 2007. The United Kingdom's Hadley Centre ocean and land temperature records show cooling in the last seven to ten years."
There is NO correlation with the global temperatures anywhere in his link. None at all.
The main factor is that if a politician is saying it you know it is a lie. Where would this trope be if not for Al Gore?
Consult the farmer almanac it is based on the same thing
"Absent from most headlines about global warming is a discussion of measures suggesting that the warming has ceased and a cooling may have begun. For example, deep-ocean heat content has not increased during the past five years. Looking at just one year, from January 2007 to January 2008, we find that satellite-derived atmospheric temperatures indicate that Earth was about one degree Fahrenheit cooler at the beginning of 2008 than it was at the beginning of 2007. The United Kingdom's Hadley Centre ocean and land temperature records show cooling in the last seven to ten years."
So your answer is politicians lie and your scientific evidence for your rebuttal is the Farmers Almanac?
You watch a lot of daytime TV don't you?
So your answer is politicians lie and your scientific evidence for your rebuttal is the Farmers Almanac?
That and the logic of the video I posted. You bet.
And yours is ubiquitous conjecture.
By virtue of the fact that what I espouse to is predicative and yours is not mine by definition is scientific and yours not so much...
So your answer is politicians lie and your scientific evidence for your rebuttal is the Farmers Almanac?
That and the logic of the video I posted. You bet.
And yours is ubiquitous conjecture.
By virtue of the fact that what I espouse to is predicative and yours is not mine by definition is scientific and yours not so much...
I think you are mistaking science for truthiness:
That and the logic of the video I posted. You bet.
Holy cow, you're dim. That's my priori evaluation.
I think you are mistaking science for truthiness
Nope i think you don't know this definition of the scientific method.
I think you are mistaking science for truthiness
Nope i think you don't know this definition of the scientific method.
If you or one of the other "believers" are a product of "school" I will pass.
Yep, you're confusing truthiness for science fact.
Its a common mistake among those who are too cool for school.
Yep, you're confusing truthiness for science fact
Nope the scientific method by definition predicts phenomenon, e.g. gravity predicts that an apple will fall to the ground.
HEY YOU,
You dumass why did you have to post the the same link @ 45 & 46?
Why don't you learn how to edit?
CO2 vulnerable plants
Which plants are those?
From the little I have seen on the topic- C02 is good for plants-some say adding more carbon would aid crop growth, some are skeptical but I haven't seen anything that says plants are harmed by it.
Anyone have info on this?
« First « Previous Comments 6 - 45 of 45 Search these comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2J8zEJHIg8
#environment