How goes that AGW thingy!?

Has the current felony criminal acts effected anyone's beliefs?
Has the receding oceans been attributed to Obama?
Has the severe temperature differentials between Europe and the US proved that the US is using scalar weapons?
Has the drop of .4 degrees proven that lowering temperatures increases warming temperatures?


Has Al Gore been replaced as Pope yet?

reply to post by LIGHTvsDARK


I have not really delved upon the questions at hand.Although, if I have time,there may be an investigation involved.

reply to post by LIGHTvsDARK


oooooo
yer gonna get in trouble!

The AGW police are going to get here soon and rake you over the coals.

They don't take kindly to having things not go their way.

did you start a thread specifically to start an argument?? i don't understand what the intention of your post is.... AGW means anti global warming or anthropogenic global warming? i assume the latter from your statements.

i'm honestly confused. no matter what happens each side is never going to believe the other.

personally i think we've egged on climate change and there is no turning back. extreme weather is going to continue. some years it won't be so bad and some years it's going to be much worse.... but overall it's going to get worse. i don't think there's anything we can do now.

www.sciencedaily.com...

i was just reading the above article about the acidity of the oceans being worse than ever. probably part of the die off culprit.

Originally posted by LIGHTvsDARK
Has the current felony criminal acts effected anyone's beliefs?

Yes! Desperate progressives and their AGW brethren now affirm that it is acceptable to steal for a story, even if the story is false, so long as it serves "the cause."

Has the receding oceans been attributed to Obama?

Yes! As fossil fuelsand electicity prices go up, the oceans go down; elementary liberal physics/meteorology.

Has the severe temperature differentials between Europe and the US proved that the US is using scalar weapons?

No. Scalar weapons have been described as having magnitude, but no direction; thus, they alone cannot account for differences by location.

Has the drop of .4 degrees proven that lowering temperatures increases warming temperatures?

Yes! And, vice versa:
Greatest Global Warming Headline ... Evah!: "Global Warming is Making the World Colder"

jw


Has Al Gore been replaced as Pope yet?

Originally posted by pasiphae
did you start a thread specifically to start an argument?? i don't understand what the intention of your post is.... AGW means anti global warming or anthropogenic global warming? i assume the latter from your statements.

AGW = anthropogenic global warming.

i'm honestly confused. no matter what happens each side is never going to believe the other.

Climate science, or any science, is not a "zero-sum game," where one side must lose something for the other's gains. True science welcomes skepticism, and theories must be "falsifiable," or testable; or else they are only dogma.

personally i think we've egged on climate change and there is no turning back.

Are you saying that if we completely stopped exhaling, eliminated cow farts and otherwise deleted man's influence, that the climate will continue to change? Doesn't that essentially prove that climate changes and cycles are continuous and oblivious to man's influence?

extreme weather is going to continue.

Was there ever a time when there were no extremes?
If we eliminate all GHGs, will the climate suddenly become static?
How do you explain climate "disasters" before the industrial revolution, or before man?

Why is the climate of the mid-to-late 20th Century the optimum climate?
What if the Earth naturally wants to be 10 or 20 degrees colder? Or warmer? Are we "correct" to stop the natural processes?

some years it won't be so bad and some years it's going to be much worse....

Isn't that called "weather?"

but overall it's going to get worse. i don't think there's anything we can do nowwww.sciencedaily.com...

i was just reading the above article about the acidity of the oceans being worse than ever. probably part of the die off culprit.

What a positive outlook! What "die off" is it the "culprit" of? Dinosaurs? Dodos?
Can we attribute all the neww species discovered to man's influence?
Must we attribute all extinctions thusly?
Aren't extinctions and evoultion natural processes, or did those stop once we learned how to start fires?

What makes you think the Earth would even notice if we disappeared?

jw

reply to post by jdub297


oh come on. all i hear from the climate change deniers is that CO2 is good and therefore the scientists are all full of crap. too much water will kill you. too much CO2 kills plants. CO2 is NOT THE ONLY THING that is causing climate change.

that's really all i have to say because the climate change deniers will not EVER believe the scientists that say climate change is real. no matter what is shown to you you'll come back with something else that says it's false information.

we all just have to agree to disagree and in 50 years we'll see.

reply to post by pasiphae

That's an interesting position, in 50 years we'll see. I take it that means there aren't enough facts right now to know for sure? If that's the case, why are we spending billions of dollars on the assumption that we know AGW is real?

Would you be willing to halt government programs based on the idea that AGW is proven?

reply to post by charles1952


i think there ARE enough facts but the deniers don't see that. that's why i said we'll see in 50 years.

reply to post by pasiphae

Dear pasiphae,

Thanks for clearing that up for me. May I ask another question?

There has been bickering back and forth over this issue for years. Each side says "We have facts to prove we're right."

Let's assume you're right and there are enough facts to prove AGW. Why is there such a fight? Are the anti AGWers inferior scientists? Have they been bribed? I can't figure this one out. What I see looks like scientists who see the same data and draw different conclusions. I'm not in a position to say which side is right.

Any help would be appreciated.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by pasiphae
i'm honestly confused. no matter what happens each side is never going to believe the other.

personally i think we've egged on climate change and there is no turning back. extreme weather is going to continue. some years it won't be so bad and some years it's going to be much worse.... but overall it's going to get worse. i don't think there's anything we can do now.

www.sciencedaily.com...

i was just reading the above article about the acidity of the oceans being worse than ever. probably part of the die off culprit.

I can quote articles from the same website that show the current models of carbon absorption are false.

Here: www.sciencedaily.com...
Ice Age Carbon Mystery: Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Not Tied to Pacific Ocean, as Had Been Suspected

After the last ice age peaked about 18,000 years ago, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide rose about 30 percent. Scientists believe that the additional carbon dioxide -- a heat-trapping greenhouse gas -- played a key role in warming the planet and melting the continental ice sheets. They have long hypothesized that the source of the gas was the deep ocean.

But a new study by a University of Michigan paleoclimatologist and two colleagues suggests that the deep ocean was not an important source of carbon during glacial times. The finding will force researchers to reassess their ideas about the fundamental mechanisms that regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide over long time scales.

Simple. . . .

Here is another one about plant life absorbing carbon that differs from the official model, also from sciencedaily. . . . . .

www.sciencedaily.com...
Measuring Global Photosynthesis Rate: Earth's Plant Life 'Recycles' Carbon Dioxide Faster Than Previously Estimated

A team led by postdoctoral researcher Lisa Welp considered the oxygen atoms contained in the carbon dioxide taken up by plants during photosynthesis. The ratio of two oxygen isotopes in carbon dioxide told researchers how long the CO2 had been in the atmosphere and how fast it had passed through plants. From this, they estimated that the global rate of photosynthesis is about 25 percent faster than thought.

"It's really hard to measure rates of photosynthesis for forests, let alone the entire globe. For a single leaf it's not so hard, you just put it in an instrument chamber and measure the CO2 decreasing in the chamber air," said Welp. "But you can't do that for an entire forest. What we have done is to use a naturally occurring marker in atmospheric CO2 that let us track how often it ended up inside a plant leaf, and from that we estimated the mean global rate of photosynthesis over the last few decades."

Carbon 6-protons 6- neutrons 6-electrons

LoL getting an F'ing clue

Originally posted by pasiphae
oh come on. all i hear from the climate change deniers is that CO2 is good and therefore the scientists are all full of crap. too much water will kill you. too much CO2 kills plants. CO2 is NOT THE ONLY THING that is causing climate change.

that's really all i have to say because the climate change deniers will not EVER believe the scientists that say climate change is real. no matter what is shown to you you'll come back with something else that says it's false information.

I quoted from the same website with studies in which your carbon/plant model is entirely debunked.

Are you going to DENY that these exists and that the facts are against you here?

Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by jdub297

 

oh come on. all i hear from the climate change deniers is that CO2 is good and therefore the scientists are all full of crap. too much water will kill you. too much CO2 kills plants. CO2 is NOT THE ONLY THING that is causing climate change.

Most people, "deniers" included, would agree that the climate is changing.
The real questions are related to causation and adaptation.
There are many of the AGW faithful who profess that the only "solution" is de-industrialization of the Western capitalist economies. Skeptics disagree. What part of "climate science" holds that re-examination and re-consideration of some basic tenets are the sole province of the AGW faithful?

that's really all i have to say because the climate change deniers will not EVER believe the scientists that say climate change is real.

No one I know denies that the climate changes.
You have your argument twisted around a non-existent prremise.

we all just have to agree to disagree and in 50 years we'll see.

Why wait?

Why don't you go back 20, 30 or 40 years and examine what the AGW priests predicted with their models, and compare them to the present? Scared? Too satisfied just to accept what they tell you?

jw