another warning shot from mother nature....

thnks obama

You don't even know how stupid that is!

This place cracks me up! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah... Fuck everything, eh, Whiny?

Even a hole in the men's room stall in the Salina Bus Station!

You don't even know how stupid that is!

This place cracks me up! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You have the advantage of having. had a stroke so even your falling white count is amusing too

Right Munchie, a lot can happen in two years. We can deduce the next thousand years of climate change based on two years. Moron!

The article is 2 years old. Things may have changed. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Wrong. As I pointed out in my previous post, things have remained consistent with what I pointed out in this thread. Again, the southern hemisphere is setting cold and snow records this year. The Antarctic is on track to beat it's previous record, or to match it again this year.

The overall trend, in both ice increase and downward average global temperatures, has been the same ever since I started tracking global weather. Over the long run, both the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets have trended towards increasing in volume, as well as in area. Over the long run, average global temperatures have been declining.

This is going to be evident when solar sunspot activity for the current solar cycle decreases. We're at the peak of solar sun spot activity, and this peak is weaker than those of previous solar sunspot activity peaks. The next solar cycle is going to be even weaker.

This means that starting next year, declining sunspot activity is going to correspond to increased cloud cover, increased precipitation, more accelerated overall global temperature decline as well as increasing ice mass in the North Pole, South Pole, and elsewhere there are large areas of ice.

Focusing on the western Antarctic ice sheet... during the South Pole's summer... is trivial and deliberately ignores the fact that the world has already entered a mini ice age.

There is already a historical precedent set. Every time solar sunspot activity behaved the way it's behaving now, we've entered decades of colder than average temperatures. At best, we're headed into another Dalton Minimum. At worse, we're headed into another Maunder Minimum. If we enter another Maunder Minimum, we will be seeing the beginning of a mega ice age before we "buy the farm."

It's a scam. Even the most recent IPCC report admitted no appreciable warming in the last 17 years. 20,000 years ago Manhattan was under an ice sheet over a mile thick.

Here another fact Nat Gas emits almost as much CO2 as coal. Obama flip flopped and now calls NG "clean energy." Originally Posted by gnadfly

But but but the world is only 6000 years old according to Bible thumping climate skeptics in the GOP/Tea Party delegation!

http://www.missiontoamerica.com/gene...and-years.html

But but but the world is only 6000 years old according to Bible thumping climate skeptics in the GOP/Tea Party delegation!

http://www.missiontoamerica.com/gene...and-years.html


Originally Posted by WTF

I'm part of that demographic, and I believe that the world is billions of years old. Those that believe that the world is only 6,000 years old are only a minority in our group. Assuming that the rest of us also hold those views is like assuming that you strongly believe in eradicating capitalism, as a good number of people on your side of the argument have argued for in the past.

We, the climate realists, disagree with man made global warming simply because the science doesn't support it. For instance, the main argument is that "Man-caused CO2 is causing temperature rise and that is causing global warming."

However, the actual science shows that temperature increases precede CO2 increases. That makes sense, from a physics standpoint. The oceans warming up are a catalyst for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Mother Nature generates over 90% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere as well. Graphs showing the CO2 to temperature comparison over the past 400,000 years show that CO2 levels have remained high well into a mega ice age before CO2 concentrations start to decline.

The oceans generate the biggest green house gas as well, water vapor, which constitutes over 94% of the world's green house gases.

The chart, shown in the linked article, is based on science, shows that there's no correlation between human activity and climate change, and shows that CO2 existed in higher concentrations in the past:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...bal_warmi.html

Wait! There are people here who think the world is only 6,000 years old? What other things do liberals believe?

I'm part of that demographic, and I believe that the world is billions of years old. Those that believe that the world is only 6,000 years old are only a minority in our group. Assuming that the rest of us also hold those views is like assuming that you strongly believe in eradicating capitalism, as a good number of people on your side of the argument have argued for in the past.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...bal_warmi.html Originally Posted by herfacechair

My point was to exclude the dumb fucks on your side who do believe that the earth is only 6k years old from the conversation.

My view on the subject is that pollution should be regulated because it cost more for future generations to clean up the mess than it would have not to have polluted in the first place.

May I suggest Jarrod Diamond book on the subject...the title of which escapes me now.

So yes I think there should be regulation but not because of climate change.

Have you ever heard of acid rain? The program to cut it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-c...b_1507392.html

Acid rain, according to data I came across last week from the University of Delaware, dropped remarkably in Lewes, Delaware, between 1990 and 2010, a decline attributed to emission cuts enforced through the acid rain program. How did that happen? Funny you should ask.


The program to address the growing acidity in rain falling in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s was established in the Clean Air Act amendments signed into law by President George H. W. Bush in 1990. The relevant section, Title IV, required large cuts in the emissions of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides from power plants "to reduce the adverse effects of acid deposition." These emissions cuts would have the added benefit of reducing fine particle pollution and ozone, which can lead to aggravated heart and lung problems, including asthma, irregular heartbeats, and nonfatal heart attacks. The cuts would also reduce haze, which limits visibility in places where visibility is important --our national parks, for example.


Quite controversial at the time, Title IV prescribed a cap-and-trade mechanism for reaching a nationwide target for sulfur dioxide emissions -- controversial for acid rain then, controversial for climate change now. Another source of controversy was the program's supposed costs: industry projected them to go as high as $1,000-$1,500 per ton of sulfur dioxide reduced, while forecasting a hike from all the Clean Air Act amendments on many states' electricity prices of up to 10 percent [pdf]. Other early projections, from sources ranging from industry to government, estimated that the annual cost of compliance for the sulfur dioxide portion of the program would be between $2.4 billion and $5 billion [pdf] for 1995-1999.


Bottom line, said many, especially those in industry: too expensive.


So What Happened With Our Acid Rain Problems?



Fortunately we are in a position to answer that question, at least in part, because the government had the foresight to establish the National Acid Deposition Program (NADP), which among other things maintains a national network of sites monitoring air quality and the composition of precipitation throughout the country.


In the case of the acidity of rain, the results are striking. Over a period of 16 years, from 1994 to 2010, we have seen a decrease in the concentration of acid-forming compounds in rain falling on the Northeast, where ecological impacts of acid rain were most severe, and in the Southeast

My point was to exclude the dumb fucks on your side who do believe that the earth is only 6k years old from the conversation.

My view on the subject is that pollution should be regulated because it cost more for future generations to clean up the mess than it would have not to have polluted in the first place. Originally Posted by WTF

Your point was to bring a strawman into the argument, as well as attempt to dismiss our entire argument because a few on our side of the argument hold an erroneous belief in another totally different topic than what's being argued here.

"Another warning shot from Mother Nature" implies that humans are "behind" global "warming." It attempts to tie in human industrial activity to the now non existent "long term increase" in global temperatures.

Environmental issues and climate issues are two totally different topics. So, the issue of "acid" rain, that could be directly tied to human industrial activity, would fall under another topic outside of the intent of the original post of this thread.

My point was to exclude the dumb fucks on your side who do believe that the earth is only 6k years old from the conversation.

My view on the subject is that pollution should be regulated because it cost more for future generations to clean up the mess ... Originally Posted by WTF

Two spurious arguments in favor of censorship .... from a "civil rights" freak?

Did you miss this part of the article? Or just ignore it?

West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers. However, the timing of this retreat is still in question, Schroeder said — it could take hundreds of years, or thousands. It's important to understand which, given that meltwater from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet contributes directly to sea level rise Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Neither, actually. My point, which I didn't do a great job of articulating, was that, given recent climatic conditions in the Antarctic, if the Thwaites glacier is still melting there must be an explanation beyond climate. The same holds true for the uplifting of the land mass beneath the glacier at a rate much higher than would be expected. The process of volcanism would explain both of those inconsistencies.

Neither, actually. My point, which I didn't do a great job of articulating, was that, given recent climatic conditions in the Antarctic, if the Thwaites glacier is still melting there must be an explanation beyond climate. The same holds true for the uplifting of the land mass beneath the glacier at a rate much higher than would be expected. The process of volcanism would explain both of those inconsistencies. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

The problem you are having is not printing it out on a Big Chief tablet, in words of two syllables or less, and then you still won't "get through" to the phantom grey-matter, because "they" don't want to consider any alternatives other than the U.S. citizens are destroying the Earth one molecule at a time with their "unnecessary and overly expensive" scientific-technological-defense industry.

That is why "they" quote different articles from the same source as a basis for the "scientific community" ALL believing the same thing, and ignore a simple physics theory of an action causing a reaction.. like squeeze a water balloon in the middle and the ends bulge out and "they" conclude they are inreasing the amount of water in the balloon.

But but but the world is only 6000 years old according .... Originally Posted by WTF

You are stuttering again. And lying. Later in the thread you crawfish.

Typical of WTF the moronic buffoon.

Your point was to bring a strawman into the argument, as well as attempt to dismiss our entire argument because a few on our side of the argument hold an erroneous belief in another totally different topic than what's being argued here.

"Another warning shot from Mother Nature" implies that humans are "behind" global "warming." It attempts to tie in human industrial activity to the now non existent "long term increase" in global temperatures.

Environmental issues and climate issues are two totally different topics. So, the issue of "acid" rain, that could be directly tied to human industrial activity, would fall under another topic outside of the intent of the original post of this thread. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Can you fucking comprehend wtf you read you dumb shit?

I know the difference between regulating for pollution and so called climate change. I'm not on board with man made climate change in case you haven't noticed. Fuck...I shouldn't have to point out the obvious.

But I brought up the acid rain fact because you free market fucks are running around saying how god damn much carbon credits will costs when in fact that did not happen with the acid rain project.

So fuck you for not being able to understand simple English and assuming you know wtf I think.