OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 5, 2015 22:20:31 GMT -5
So carbon is as dangerous as strychnine?
|
|
jambo101
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 1, 2015 5:42:51 GMT -5
Posts: 115
|
Post by jambo101 on Nov 6, 2015 3:34:13 GMT -5
With mans use of 100 million barrels of fossil fuel (oil) per day globally i would imagine there has to be some environmental consequence to this course of action, if all the scientists are saying global warming is the consequence i'm seeing very little credible study to refute the results of their studies. I dont have these resources at my disposal to study and come to alternate conclusions.I'll take them at their word just like i trust them when they tell me the Earth is a sphere and not flat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 5:03:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2015 13:45:41 GMT -5
A cut paste of numbers from NOAA. from the link in reply #116 ...According to NOAA data, the amount of total CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately three one-hundredths of 1 percent, or .0003 percent of the total atmosphere. And the man-made contribution to that total amount of CO2 is only .0004 of that number — bear with me; yes, they will be talking about only four one-hundredths of that three one-hundredths of a percent in Paris. Never has so much been spent on so little. And the Democrats are just getting started. What are we willing to sacrifice in terms of economy and the human quality of life to make a tiny fraction of a small number slightly smaller? Given what we know so far, it is fair to ask if it is possible to make an impact, or if it is even measurable. So small amounts of things can't have an impact? Good to know. Next time someone ingests 30 mg of strychnine we'll just tell him it's only 0.00004 % of the total make up of his body, so stop whining about it, it can't possibly have an impact. Strychnine is a poison, carbon is not. I can't even say apples and oranges for that one. More like a cement truck versus hot air balloon comparison. NOAA's numbers still remain the same. Mans contribution is almost non-existant on a global scale. The supposed fix is an even smaller number that means nothing at the growth rate of our population. If you have kids (and are part of the problem) best hope the physicists are right. [ If not, we're all going to die after being sucked off our respective landmasses by an AGW driven gigantic super cyclone and be literally flushed down in a gigantic toilet like swirl to the bottom of the ocean were we will all drown and effectively stop polluting the planet because we'll all be dead.]
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 5:03:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2015 14:05:20 GMT -5
|
|
jambo101
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 1, 2015 5:42:51 GMT -5
Posts: 115
|
Post by jambo101 on Nov 6, 2015 16:07:34 GMT -5
With mans use of 100 million barrels of fossil fuel (oil) per day globally i would imagine there has to be some environmental consequence to this course of action, if all the scientists are saying global warming is the consequence i'm seeing very little credible study to refute the results of their studies. I dont have these resources at my disposal to study and come to alternate conclusions.I'll take them at their word just like i trust them when they tell me the Earth is a sphere and not flat. I'm not imagining anything as i;m not a climatologist and can only express my views on the issue from laymans point of view.With the overwhelming consensus on Global Warming from the worlds scientific community i'm more inclined to agree with their claims than think its all a hoax and all the scientists are lying, While your link seems like in depth scientific fact it is in essence a theory put forth by Douglas Cotton, B.Sc., B.A. and doesnt represent current scientific communities line of thinking.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 7, 2015 22:33:40 GMT -5
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Nov 8, 2015 14:50:24 GMT -5
Strychnine is a poison, carbon is not. I can't even say apples and oranges for that one. More like a cement truck versus hot air balloon comparison. NOAA's numbers still remain the same. Mans contribution is almost non-existant on a global scale. The supposed fix is an even smaller number that means nothing at the growth rate of our population. If you have kids (and are part of the problem) best hope the physicists are right. [ If not, we're all going to die after being sucked off our respective landmasses by an AGW driven gigantic super cyclone and be literally flushed down in a gigantic toilet like swirl to the bottom of the ocean were we will all drown and effectively stop polluting the planet because we'll all be dead.] I knew it was all my kids fault! They are always draining my resources!! Seems like with your super cyclone theory and the article that, OC posted there is a big market for AGW bunkers!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 9, 2015 9:29:47 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/co2-levels-hit-record-high-30th-row-wmo-101344400.html Quick save yourselves, the Apocalypse is upon us, All the ice is going to melt, Any of you living at less than 100 ft. above sea level are doomed. But you can save youselves by contacting Oldcoyote who has procured a large tract of high desert land that can be yours for a price of------- NO more than Oldcoyote adding at lest three zero's to the price Oldcoyote paid, Quick save your selves before the ocean catches you sleeping. You waited to long ,Old coyote just added another zero!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 9, 2015 11:25:25 GMT -5
Here is my question, Here in Phoenix, the weather service is telling us that it's going to be another record Month. Of course it is caused by Climate change. Searching for old weather station history is difficult at least for Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. Here is what I found, It is out of 1950. weatherspark.com/history/31259/1950/Phoenix-Arizona-United-States In 1950, the airport was surrounded miles of shrublands 85%, Croplands 5%, Forest 4%, Grasslands 2%, and builtup at 3%. Today that same airport is completely surrounded by the city. we have so many runway, taxiways, it seems the ground is covered with concrete. We have huge concrete terminal buildings, Every side of the airport is covered with Streets and freeways. Here is my point, all of this concrete and asphalt is a great heat sink. So how do we accurately compare the temperatures from say the 1950 when the airport was surrounded with greenery (Not a heat sink). With today when it is completely surrounded with a huge heat sink?? When it supports the man-made global warming alarmist agenda, I guess weather actually is climate. We are headed into the coldest and snowiest winter in decades (if you believe the Old Farmer's Almanac) and we will be told weather isn't climate.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Nov 9, 2015 20:20:32 GMT -5
Weather is a byproduct of climate- weather has jack to do with climate. I thought that was old news. But yes- I if you are going to throw a snowball in congress as proof global warming is a hoax then you will probably be told that If the data came out tomorrow that it was indeed a massive miscalculation and flawed model, and the world was in no danger then I would be happy about it and joke about how climate scientists are about as accurate as weathermen. People in your camp, however, if faced with the opposite proof will go down with the ship denying reality as your coastline recedes and your homes become submerged. The only thing that is going to put you on the right track is when the government and insurance companies tell you they are not going to cover it anymore- of course the rural folks will still be yapping about the hoax.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Nov 9, 2015 20:36:06 GMT -5
by–prod·uct: something that is produced during the production or destruction of something else : something that happens as a result of something else Here is my question, Here in Phoenix, the weather service is telling us that it's going to be another record Month. Of course it is caused by Climate change. Searching for old weather station history is difficult at least for Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. Here is what I found, It is out of 1950. weatherspark.com/history/31259/1950/Phoenix-Arizona-United-States In 1950, the airport was surrounded miles of shrublands 85%, Croplands 5%, Forest 4%, Grasslands 2%, and builtup at 3%. Today that same airport is completely surrounded by the city. we have so many runway, taxiways, it seems the ground is covered with concrete. We have huge concrete terminal buildings, Every side of the airport is covered with Streets and freeways. Here is my point, all of this concrete and asphalt is a great heat sink. So how do we accurately compare the temperatures from say the 1950 when the airport was surrounded with greenery (Not a heat sink). With today when it is completely surrounded with a huge heat sink?? When it supports the man-made global warming alarmist agenda, I guess weather actually is climate. We are headed into the coldest and snowiest winter in decades (if you believe the Old Farmer's Almanac) and we will be told weather isn't climate. It's going to be interesting to see what kind of effect Ei Nino will have on their incredibly accurate forecasting.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 10, 2015 7:10:14 GMT -5
What , no comments about how the world scientist then were so sure we were headed for an ice age, They were just stupid, Right,,, to say such things.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 10, 2015 7:25:14 GMT -5
What , no comments about how the world scientist then were so sure we were headed for an ice age, They were just stupid, Right,,, to say such things. What is there to say about a forty-year-old article and the scientific tools available at the time? Are you better informed today than you were forty years ago?
|
|
jambo101
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 1, 2015 5:42:51 GMT -5
Posts: 115
|
Post by jambo101 on Nov 10, 2015 7:29:47 GMT -5
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 10, 2015 8:41:31 GMT -5
jambo101, You are new here, I make fun of thing that "in my most humble opinion" exaggerations of the truth. Do I believe in Climate Change? you bet I do. It has been changing since the day the Earth developed an atmosphere. You find a link showing the crazy Global Warming deniers. I sometime find links for crazy Climate Change Scientists. You know like the ones that declared that all of the Arctic ice would gone by 2007 or 2012, all the polar bears would be dead. the truth lay somewhere in the middle. Let's take Hurricane Patrica for an example, you know the most powerful hurricane in the history of man. Winds of to 200 mph, lowest barometric pressure, ( by the way the part where the hurricane hunters did not drop their instrument in the center of the eye, the low barometric pressure was an estimate.) That story has apparently disappeared from the internet. The hurricane while still over warm ocean waters dropped suddenly to 165 mph before hitting the coast, also the lack of property damage. I see two reasons for the exaggeration, one to promote Global warming, and two, more honesty, to encourage the population to evacuate.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 10, 2015 8:42:49 GMT -5
|
|
jambo101
Junior Member
Joined: Nov 1, 2015 5:42:51 GMT -5
Posts: 115
|
Post by jambo101 on Nov 10, 2015 10:13:50 GMT -5
The main focus on the Global Warming debate is not whether the Earth has previously gone through warming and cooling cycles but is the current warming trend an abnormal warming cycle caused by man,the scientists almost unanimously seem to think it is and are predicting extremes of weather as a consequence to mans activities. Reading about current weather extremes around the world gives me pause to ponder the scientists claims.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Nov 10, 2015 19:52:31 GMT -5
by–prod·uct: something that is produced during the production or destruction of something else : something that happens as a result of something else When it supports the man-made global warming alarmist agenda, I guess weather actually is climate. We are headed into the coldest and snowiest winter in decades (if you believe the Old Farmer's Almanac) and we will be told weather isn't climate. It's going to be interesting to see what kind of effect Ei Nino will have on their incredibly accurate forecasting. Well gee thanks professor- but it is obvious what I meant and arguably a proper term IMO- climate changes and as a side effect weather changes. Did you check my spelling too?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 11, 2015 7:10:07 GMT -5
The International Energy Agency just released a report on 10 Things You Should Know About Global Clean Energy. fortune.com/2015/11/10/global-clean-energy-iea/ " But now the IEA has found that global carbon emissions remained flat, or declined ever so slightly, in 2014, while the world’s economy actually grew at a decent pace. That is likely an anomaly, and won’t be repeated in the near future."How could this possible be, in 2014 that carbon emissions were flat or even declining! But don't worry, the climate scientist will come to the rescue, knowing that if this is true they may lose their funding for proving global warming! You know, like how antarctic ice is increasing because of warmer water. Yes I am worried just how thick the ice will get when climate change makes the water hot!
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Nov 11, 2015 20:06:10 GMT -5
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Nov 11, 2015 20:38:28 GMT -5
Global Warming Enters "Unchartered Territory" As Temperatures Breach 1C
Where dumed, dumed I tale yeah!
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Nov 11, 2015 23:25:04 GMT -5
The International Energy Agency just released a report on 10 Things You Should Know About Global Clean Energy. fortune.com/2015/11/10/global-clean-energy-iea/ " But now the IEA has found that global carbon emissions remained flat, or declined ever so slightly, in 2014, while the world’s economy actually grew at a decent pace. That is likely an anomaly, and won’t be repeated in the near future."How could this possible be, in 2014 that carbon emissions were flat or even declining! But don't worry, the climate scientist will come to the rescue, knowing that if this is true they may lose their funding for proving global warming! You know, like how antarctic ice is increasing because of warmer water. Yes I am worried just how thick the ice will get when climate change makes the water hot! That's going to be the best part about solving CO2 waste. Solving all the wasted money on if x% of C02 in the air is going to cause the apocalypse! When climate still changes in the same pattern as it did before the "debate".... Canadian real estate $$$$$ is going to increase 5x!
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Nov 12, 2015 23:09:02 GMT -5
Global Warming Enters "Unchartered Territory" As Temperatures Breach 1C
Where dumed, dumed I tale yeah! Yuk Yuk Yuk- should be quite clear in 30 years- but I guess I should trust your opinion over scientists
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 13, 2015 8:55:56 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 13, 2015 13:15:18 GMT -5
how is trolling going, today?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 5:03:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 13:51:26 GMT -5
I'm not imagining anything as i;m not a climatologist and can only express my views on the issue from laymans point of view.With the overwhelming consensus on Global Warming from the worlds scientific community i'm more inclined to agree with their claims than think its all a hoax and all the scientists are lying, While your link seems like in depth scientific fact it is in essence a theory put forth by Douglas Cotton, B.Sc., B.A. and doesnt represent current scientific communities line of thinking. If it doesn't represent the current scientific community that you believe in. Your answer is a summation from a lay mans point of view. Atmospheric carbon emission is the current bogey man for the AGW alarmists. How do you feel about that, (carbon emissions) from a lay mans point of view ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 5:03:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 13:56:53 GMT -5
Hi oldcoyote, it looks like your a prime candidate to join the Inland Landowners Association of which I'm a charter member. We are geared for land sales by subdividing large tracts and selling them to people moving in from the coastline to avoid rapidly rising sea levels and supercharged ocean cyclones. For the right price of course !
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 5:03:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 14:23:44 GMT -5
The main focus on the Global Warming debate is not whether the Earth has previously gone through warming and cooling cycles but is the current warming trend an abnormal warming cycle caused by man,the scientists almost unanimously seem to think it is and are predicting extremes of weather as a consequence to mans activities. Reading about current weather extremes around the world gives me pause to ponder the scientists claims. Where the "almost unanimous" numbers come from ...quote; Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded. Read more at: www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Nov 13, 2015 14:59:09 GMT -5
"Here is my point, all of this concrete and asphalt is a great heat sink. So how do we accurately compare the temperatures from say the 1950 when the airport was surrounded with greenery (Not a heat sink). With today when it is completely surrounded with a huge heat sink??"
I'm still conflicted about "global warming"...oops. "climate change". I live in upstate NY and I was expecting to see palm trees in a decade or two. But that's not about to happen. We have had two severe winters.
I don't want to disbelieve the scientists who dedicate their lives to this, and it seems that we are seeing more extreme weather events...but maybe that is just "mother nature"? I really don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 5:03:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 15:13:24 GMT -5
"Here is my point, all of this concrete and asphalt is a great heat sink. So how do we accurately compare the temperatures from say the 1950 when the airport was surrounded with greenery (Not a heat sink). With today when it is completely surrounded with a huge heat sink??"
I'm still conflicted about "global warming"...oops. "climate change". I live in upstate NY and I was expecting to see palm trees in a decade or two. But that's not about to happen. We have had two severe winters. I don't want to disbelieve the scientists who dedicate their lives to this, and it seems that we are seeing more extreme weather events...but maybe that is just "mother nature"? I really don't know. I see the viewing of extreme weather events as a function of a better and faster more widespread communication system. Violent weather video really brings in the viewers and quickly sells the commercial time. I wouldn't worry about the scientists too much. They have very thick skin and hear contradictory nonsense on a daily basis.
|
|