Anti GW folks, please refute this

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The polar icecaps are proof enough, you don't need this graph. Sad that Europe will soon lose their summers.

..ya. and Greenland will be green again.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
Anthropogenic Global Warming

..a hoax.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I don't know how people can think that global warming does not exist, regardless of this graph or studies

In my experience, I have noticed how the seasons have constantly "moved" and no longer sync up the way they used to.

For example:

Before: It used to get cold right in October, Snow in Nov, snow most intense in Jan, through to February, Begin melting March, Snow gone by April

Now: Hot Sept, Warm Oct, Bitterly cold Nov, Cold December, Snow starting Jan through end of March, most intense snow was in the middle of march, it melted by mid april but remained bitterly cold into May.

Sounds like your problem isn't global warming, its that your calender is a couple months fast.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It?s amazing what you?ll believe when you only know part of history and leave out the parts that don?t fit a dogma.

It's amazing that you think I don't know about historical cold snaps, and that I'm stupid enough to believe that anthropogenic activities aren't affecting the polar icecaps.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The polar icecaps are proof enough, you don't need this graph. Sad that Europe will soon lose their summers.

..ya. and Greenland will be green again.

I advise you to educate yourself on the effects of freshwater from polar icecaps melting which will cut off the Gulf Stream (and in effect crippling the global oceanic conveyor system). No, Greenland won't be "green again", lol.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The polar icecaps are proof enough, you don't need this graph. Sad that Europe will soon lose their summers.

..ya. and Greenland will be green again.

I advise you to educate yourself on the effects of freshwater from polar icecaps melting which will cut off the Gulf Stream (and in effect crippling the global oceanic conveyor system). No, Greenland won't be "green again", lol.

Oh yeah, there was a documentary about that, I think it was called the day after tomorrow or something.

 

[NeoV]

the second graph I linked takes into account solar activities as well.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Anti GW folks, please refute this

Why? We could stipulate that it's true if you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference. The kind of changes you probably have in mind are so minor they won't make a bit of difference, and no one is going to give up their economic autonomy to make the kinds of changes the radical environmentalists would impose. Not the United States, not China or India, not the EU (see how well the Kyoto targets have worked out), nor you OP.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The polar icecaps are proof enough, you don't need this graph. Sad that Europe will soon lose their summers.

..ya. and Greenland will be green again.

I advise you to educate yourself on the effects of freshwater from polar icecaps melting which will cut off the Gulf Stream (and in effect crippling the global oceanic conveyor system). No, Greenland won't be "green again", lol.

Oh yeah, there was a documentary about that, I think it was called the day after tomorrow or something.

There was an informative article about it in Scientific American, PM me for the issue.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: NeoV
Anti GW folks, please refute this

Why? We could stipulate that it's true if you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference. The kind of changes you probably have in mind are so minor they won't make a bit of difference, and no one is going to give up their economic autonomy to make the kinds of changes the radical environmentalists would impose. Not the United States, not China or India, not the EU (see how well the Kyoto targets have worked out), nor you OP.

In Layman's, environmental change will be forced to happen in the next 40 years, since that's how much oil is left.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: NeoV
Anti GW folks, please refute this

Why? We could stipulate that it's true if you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference. The kind of changes you probably have in mind are so minor they won't make a bit of difference, and no one is going to give up their economic autonomy to make the kinds of changes the radical environmentalists would impose. Not the United States, not China or India, not the EU (see how well the Kyoto targets have worked out), nor you OP.

In Layman's, environmental change will be forced to happen in the next 40 years, since that's how much oil is left.

At our current rate of consumption/successful exploration.

The ROI on our present primary energy source is fading. Humanity is forced to evolve again. Will it?

 

[Cattlegod]

"At 385 parts per million (ppm) by volume, CO2 levels are now, in a geologic sense, at their lowest in 600 million years. For example, during the exceptionally cold Ordovician glaciation, about 440 million years ago, CO2 levels were more than ten times higher than today. At other times, warm temperatures occurred when CO2 levels were high. During this period, there was no consistent correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. When, in more recent millennia, a correlation appears evident, temperature changes before CO2. "

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1489

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw you should change your title. I dont know many people who dont believe the Earth if warming. What it should read is MMGW. People dont believe we are the primary cause of the current warming trend.

what he said.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: NeoV
LINKY

Set aside any other discussion or technical detail of the GW discussion.

Explain to me how the graph in the picture - which comes from NASA, doesn't make you realize that humans are in fact having a major impact on the earth's climate, right now.

Forget Al Gore, Forget his movie, his energy use - forget carbon credits, and the so-called Carbon-con.

Correlation is not causation.

1. Why wasn't there an increase in atmospheric CO2 following the industrial revolution?

2. Why wasn't there an increase in atmospheric CO2 following geological events such as volcanic eruptions that released a lot more CO2 than we ever have?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: NeoV
LINKY

Set aside any other discussion or technical detail of the GW discussion.

Explain to me how the graph in the picture - which comes from NASA, doesn't make you realize that humans are in fact having a major impact on the earth's climate, right now.

Forget Al Gore, Forget his movie, his energy use - forget carbon credits, and the so-called Carbon-con.

Correlation is not causation.

1. Why wasn't there an increase in atmospheric CO2 following the industrial revolution?

2. Why wasn't there an increase in atmospheric CO2 following geological events such as volcanic eruptions that released a lot more CO2 than we ever have?

1) there was, but it took time for the Industry to grow before it became a factor

2) there was, but it takes a lot of Volcanic activity to raise CO2 significantly. There is enough Volcanic activity now to maintain a certain level of CO2 in the Atmosphere. There just isn't enough to account for current levels that are still increasing as we discuss the issue.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: NeoV
LINKY

Set aside any other discussion or technical detail of the GW discussion.

Explain to me how the graph in the picture - which comes from NASA, doesn't make you realize that humans are in fact having a major impact on the earth's climate, right now.

Forget Al Gore, Forget his movie, his energy use - forget carbon credits, and the so-called Carbon-con.

Correlation is not causation.

1. Why wasn't there an increase in atmospheric CO2 following the industrial revolution?

2. Why wasn't there an increase in atmospheric CO2 following geological events such as volcanic eruptions that released a lot more CO2 than we ever have?

1) there was, but it took time for the Industry to grow before it became a factor

2) there was, but it takes a lot of Volcanic activity to raise CO2 significantly. There is enough Volcanic activity now to maintain a certain level of CO2 in the Atmosphere. There just isn't enough to account for current levels that are still increasing as we discuss the issue.

1) The timing is not consistent. For 200 years atmospheric CO2 was constant then suddenly it jumps up. I would accept the explanation that we just recently saturated the earth's geological carbon sink. But then again.....

2) A single volcanic eruption can dump more CO2 than the entire industrial revolution, not a lot of activity. There were many volcanic eruption but the CO2 level never increased significantly. This brings me back to the point about the geological carbon sink that we may have saturated in recent years. If that is true than human activity is really just a drop in the bucket.

Why have people ignored the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature? I would like to see someone discuss that.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I don't know how people can think that global warming does not exist, regardless of this graph or studies

In my experience, I have noticed how the seasons have constantly "moved" and no longer sync up the way they used to.

For example:

Before: It used to get cold right in October, Snow in Nov, snow most intense in Jan, through to February, Begin melting March, Snow gone by April

Now: Hot Sept, Warm Oct, Bitterly cold Nov, Cold December, Snow starting Jan through end of March, most intense snow was in the middle of march, it melted by mid april but remained bitterly cold into May.

Great measurement period. Perhaps we should base all statistical analysis on anecdotal and short-term analysis and only use one independent variable at all times. That'll give us the right answer!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: NeoV
Anti GW folks, please refute this

Why? We could stipulate that it's true if you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference. The kind of changes you probably have in mind are so minor they won't make a bit of difference, and no one is going to give up their economic autonomy to make the kinds of changes the radical environmentalists would impose. Not the United States, not China or India, not the EU (see how well the Kyoto targets have worked out), nor you OP.

In Layman's, environmental change will be forced to happen in the next 40 years, since that's how much oil is left.

LOL, not even close. Between Alberta, Bakken, and other sources, there's far more than 40 years.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Why have people ignored the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature? I would like to see someone discuss that.

Because it has been thoroughly and mercilessly debunked, and frankly I'm bored with that particular bogus claim.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: NeoV
Anti GW folks, please refute this

Why? We could stipulate that it's true if you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference. The kind of changes you probably have in mind are so minor they won't make a bit of difference, and no one is going to give up their economic autonomy to make the kinds of changes the radical environmentalists would impose. Not the United States, not China or India, not the EU (see how well the Kyoto targets have worked out), nor you OP.

In Layman's, environmental change will be forced to happen in the next 40 years, since that's how much oil is left.

LOL, not even close. Between Alberta, Bakken, and other sources, there's far more than 40 years.

Wrong.
Read: In the absence of new discoveries, BP's figures suggest that there are approximately 40 years' worth of "conventional proved oil reserves" remaining at current production levels.

Read the 1 year old study.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: NeoV
Anti GW folks, please refute this

Why? We could stipulate that it's true if you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference. The kind of changes you probably have in mind are so minor they won't make a bit of difference, and no one is going to give up their economic autonomy to make the kinds of changes the radical environmentalists would impose. Not the United States, not China or India, not the EU (see how well the Kyoto targets have worked out), nor you OP.

In Layman's, environmental change will be forced to happen in the next 40 years, since that's how much oil is left.

At our current rate of consumption/successful exploration.

The ROI on our present primary energy source is fading. Humanity is forced to evolve again. Will it?

Yep, I'm betting on Hydrogen since we can now turn trash into a net gain energy process and convert the syngas to hydrogen. The big question is, can oil companies/lobbyists continue to keep their stranglehold on us for the next 40-50 years or will the people demand change? I'm betting on apathy.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: NeoV
Anti GW folks, please refute this

Why? We could stipulate that it's true if you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference. The kind of changes you probably have in mind are so minor they won't make a bit of difference, and no one is going to give up their economic autonomy to make the kinds of changes the radical environmentalists would impose. Not the United States, not China or India, not the EU (see how well the Kyoto targets have worked out), nor you OP.

In Layman's, environmental change will be forced to happen in the next 40 years, since that's how much oil is left.

LOL, not even close. Between Alberta, Bakken, and other sources, there's far more than 40 years.

Wrong.
Read: In the absence of new discoveries, BP's figures suggest that there are approximately 40 years' worth of "conventional proved oil reserves" remaining at current production levels.

Read the 1 year old study.

*CONVENTIONAL* *PROVED*. Do you need english reading classes?

1. *CONVENTIONAL* means regular drilled oil wells, not Bakken or Alberta, as I mentioned. *CONVENTIONAL* also probably means non-deep-well drilling, such as deep offshore wells. Simple enough?

2. *PROVED* means you know it's there, you know how much there is, and you can extract it easily. Thus, ANWR is *PROVED*, but the new Brazil finds weren't until recently. I don't think any of the Arctic numbers are *PROVED*.

Combine the two and you get something completely different.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: NeoV
Anti GW folks, please refute this

Why? We could stipulate that it's true if you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference. The kind of changes you probably have in mind are so minor they won't make a bit of difference, and no one is going to give up their economic autonomy to make the kinds of changes the radical environmentalists would impose. Not the United States, not China or India, not the EU (see how well the Kyoto targets have worked out), nor you OP.

In Layman's, environmental change will be forced to happen in the next 40 years, since that's how much oil is left.

LOL, not even close. Between Alberta, Bakken, and other sources, there's far more than 40 years.

Wrong.
Read: In the absence of new discoveries, BP's figures suggest that there are approximately 40 years' worth of "conventional proved oil reserves" remaining at current production levels.

Read the 1 year old study.

I guess the vaccum the study lived in is already incorrect as the Brazilians found a new reserve just recently. How anyone could say we only have 40 years of oil left with a straight face is puzzling to me...unless it's being said to be purposefully misleading.

30 years ago they said we only have X years of oil left... but reality has shown their vaccums don't work.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I guess the vaccum the study lived in is already incorrect as the Brazilians found a new reserve just recently. How anyone could say we only have 40 years of oil left with a straight face is puzzling to me...unless it's being said to be purposefully misleading.

30 years ago they said we only have X years of oil left... but reality has shown their vaccums don't work.

They only work when the target of the FUD has a vacuum between their ears, as this guy apparently does. I mean, he can't even take common language, distill the actual meanings behind it, and come up with a logical conclusion.

 

[Genx87]

Are we still talking about running out of oil? When I was a kid they said 20 years left of oil. 30 years later we are at 40 years. So in 40 years will it be 60?

Have we even explored the deep of our oceans yet? It seems like the majority of our exploration is on land or in shallow coastal waters.