NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
But the earth has... Why dont we try to adapt rather than assume our puny species can alter the rotation of the planets and the output of the sun.
The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Because the measurement in 1 location does not equal the global levels.
We can only go back 80,000 years in the direct measurement.
So, I have no idea how you even think the Earth had higher CO2 than now.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
the argument was that temps were rising because of the incease in CO2. This last decade has seen an increase in CO2 by 20 percent but flat temps. Is the CO2 just following the temps from the decade before or will the next decade be 20 percent hotter? Understanding this will help.
let's take a trip down memory lane..shall we, uncle ben?
starting of course with that heathen of all time lincoln at an estimated 1.64%..and the rest? well, that's history
how quickly we forget.
Presidents by average scholar rank(From wikipedia)
Lincoln is generally considered tops, thanks to his leadership during the American Civil War and his eloquence in speeches like the Gettysburg Address# President Political Party Average ranking Likely reason for extreme ranking
(not provided by scholars)
1 Abraham Lincoln Republican 1.64 Abolition of slavery, American Civil War leadership
2 Franklin D. Roosevelt Democrat 2 Leadership of World War II and Great Depression, forming New Deal Coalition
3 George Washington Federalist-leaning non-partisan 2.81 First President, founder of the Republic, established many precedents
4 Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican 4.45 Intellectual leadership, Louisiana Purchase, states-rights
5 Theodore Roosevelt Republican 4.82 Charisma, conservationism, trust-busting "Square Deal," Panama Canal
6 Woodrow Wilson Democrat 6.64 World War I leadership; major legislation
7 Harry S. Truman Democrat 7.1 World War II and Cold War leadership
8 Andrew Jackson Democrat 9.18 Overall effectiveness, charisma, nationalism
9 Dwight Eisenhower Republican 10.7 Cold War leadership, economic prosperity
10 James K. Polk Democrat 11 Mexican-American War leadership
11 John Adams Federalist 12.45
12 John F. Kennedy Democrat 12.45
13 James Madison Democratic-Republican 12.54
14 Ronald Reagan Republican 13.88
15 James Monroe Democratic-Republican 14
16 Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat 14
17 Grover Cleveland Democrat 14.81
18 William McKinley Republican 16.18
19 John Quincy Adams National Republican/Whig 17
20 William Howard Taft Republican 19.73
21 Bill Clinton Democrat 20.67
22 George W. Bush Republican 21
23 Martin Van Buren Democrat 21.81
24 Rutherford B. Hayes Republican 22
25 George H. W. Bush Republican 22.14
26 Chester Arthur Republican 25.45
27 Jimmy Carter Democrat 26.44
28 Gerald Ford Republican 26.55
29 Herbert Hoover Republican 26.63
30 Benjamin Harrison Republican 27.73
31 Calvin Coolidge Republican 28.27 Disinterest in exerting executive or federal power (regarded as a strength by some)
32 Richard Nixon Republican 28.66 Corrupt administration, notably the Watergate scandal
33 James A. Garfield Republican 29.57 Brief administration
34 Zachary Taylor Whig 29.82 Shorter term, did not support Compromise
35 John Tyler Whig/none 32.09 Lack of support from any political party
36 Millard Fillmore Whig 32.73 Fugitive Slave Act, lack of leadership during growing sectional divisiveness
37 Ulysses Grant Republican 33.27 Corrupt administration
38 William Henry Harrison Whig 33.57 Very brief administration (30 days)
39 Andrew Johnson Democrat 34.91 Reconstruction, impeachment
40 Franklin Pierce Democrat 35.27 Failure to avert Civil War; overall weak leadership
41 James Buchanan Democrat 36.91 Failure to avert Civil War; ruined his party; weak leadership
42 Warren G. Harding Republican 37.45 Corrupt administration
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Doer,
I was an alcoholic for a long time. Part of my recovery was realizing that I had to let go of worrying about things beyond my control.
The global production of CO2 is beyond the control of America. We cannot reduce the output of other countries without nuclear war.
The global warming debate has been turned into a political tool and is being discredited by its use as such.
I was an alcoholic for a long time. Part of my recovery was realizing that I had to let go of worrying about things beyond my control.
The global production of CO2 is beyond the control of America. We cannot reduce the output of other countries without nuclear war.
The global warming debate has been turned into a political tool and is being discredited by its use as such.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Are you retarded?. I post the world wide data twice already. We watch directly from space, dumb-dumb. We are not just depending on one thing here.
That would be you.
And the oceans are warming. Back in the 90s it didn't look to me as they were, but now we have 20 more years of observation.
The fluid is under many loads, pressure and temperature based, as is the atmosphere's fluid. Those two are joined at the hip. The forces at play are 3 fold, steric, halosteric, and thermosteric.
The ocean heat and expands
It evaporates and cools
It contracts and then expands again
It adds more water to the atmosphere
more freshwater flows into the ocean
the salinity changes and that also effect the other forces.
Only just now are we seeing the brute force of heating over come the others,
Since we see the Ice Shelves are failing, in the next decade we will see the global freshwater cycle strengthen, which is driven by evaporation from the oceans.
It will climb out of the interannual noise (meaning we will see a measurable increase in atmospheric total water content, increases in ocean surface salinity in regions where evaporation dominates precipitation.
We will see a intensification of rain and snow, due to the increase in specific humidity.
The extra freshwater is the doom for the Ice.
This decrease in ocean height (the halosteric, evaporation effect) will be swamped however, by the thermosteric effect (the warming) and by the freshwater input from the melting Ice.
You see that flat part of the sea level in the 90s and 00s? We are past that now.
Last edited:
Doer
Well-Known Member
I am talking about the observed science has changed in the last 2 decades.
Politics is only about what to do with the money.
Let us say, MAGIC!!! Now you do fully see the science and are in a position to do something or nothing. You will not do nothing or you will be fired.
In the face of something, our global leaders will do something, That is the job.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Just don't try to fake science. I post and discuss science on this. There are many graphs that I just posted that show the details and how any snapshot as you say, is not the science it is the political opposition to the science,
We are not taking about one effect, lagging another. Of course they do, it being a cascade of forces affecting other forces.
We are taking about the total effect from 80,000 years ago to now,
Those are measured. One effect dominates. CO2 is rising. The oceans are heating.
The greenhouse MAIN gas is now being gushed by the oceans. Not CO2. It is H2O, we worry about. The CO2 is forcing the MAIN greenhouse gas. It is forcing the de-salination of the oceans. That forces Ice melting and that forces more de-salination,
See? Real is not but scary. It is not fake.
Last edited:
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Uh, you do understand that "Congress" in those polls ISN'T the House of Representatives? It's the Democrat controlled Senate AND House of Representatives.
So, your low approval rating for "Congress" is just as damning to the Dems as the Pubs.
I know know libs get confused because politicians in the House are called "Congressmen", but the Senators are just as much a part of "Congress" as the members of the House. Just like progressives think their agenda isn't based on centuries old, failed concepts, because they have the word "progress" in their moniker.
hyroot
Well-Known Member
I can make a graph say what ever I want too. That proves nothing. Cite university and scientific studies to prove otherwise. Until then your b.s. Is just conjecture.do tell.
ha ha ha ha ha
you forgot the main thrust of that (made up) statistic, and that is "ABOVE THE BASELINE"
annual man made co2 emissions worldwide for 2012: ~ 34 gigatonnes
annual termite co2 emissions: 50 gigatonnes
see the BIG arrows pointing up in that image? those are NATURAL co2 emissions and the NATURAL emissions of co2 tot up to ~771.4 gigatonnes per anum
771.4 gigatonnes
vs
34 gigatonnes..
it doesnt take a math wiz to figure out that your full of shit.
irrelevant hyperbole.
huh? teh fux you on about?
two truths and a lie.
Doer
Well-Known Member
It is a tie.
--------------------------
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 12% of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. Senate is doing a good or excellent job. Fifty-three percent (53%) rate the Senate’s performance as poor.
Nineteen percent (19%) of voters believe the House is doing a good or excellent job, while 51% view its performance as poor.
http://gapundit.com/2013/03/11/rasmussen-low-approval-ratings-for-congress-senate/
--------------------------
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 12% of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. Senate is doing a good or excellent job. Fifty-three percent (53%) rate the Senate’s performance as poor.
Nineteen percent (19%) of voters believe the House is doing a good or excellent job, while 51% view its performance as poor.
http://gapundit.com/2013/03/11/rasmussen-low-approval-ratings-for-congress-senate/
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/28/cooling-pacific-dampened-global-warmingAre you retarded?. I post the world wide data twice already. We watch directly from space, dumb-dumb. We are not just depending on one thing here.
That would be you.
And the oceans are warming. Back in the 90s it didn't look to me as they were, but now we have 20 more years of observation.
The fluid is under many loads, pressure and temperature based, as is the atmosphere's fluid. Those two are joined at the hip. The forces at play are 3 fold, steric, halosteric, and thermosteric.
The ocean heat and expands
It evaporates and cools
It contracts and then expands again
It adds more water to the atmosphere
more freshwater flows into the ocean
the salinity changes and that also effect the other forces.
Only just now are we seeing the brute force of heating over come the others,
Since we see the Ice Shelves are failing, in the next decade we will see the global freshwater cycle strengthen, which is driven by evaporation from the oceans.
It will climb out of the interannual noise (meaning we will see a measurable increase in atmospheric total water content, increases in ocean surface salinity in regions where evaporation dominates precipitation.
We will see a intensification of rain and snow, due to the increase in specific humidity.
The extra freshwater is the doom for the Ice.
This decrease in ocean height (the halosteric, evaporation effect) will be swamped however, by the thermosteric effect (the warming) and by the freshwater input from the melting Ice.
You see that flat part of the sea level in the 90s and 00s? We are past that now.
Pacific temperatures are cooling....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/pacific-ocean-temperatures_n_3832273.html
Yep, cooling...
From this week... Yep... Cooling
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2013/08/28/global-warming-hiatus/2718147/
So, how do I believe you Doer?
People say the globe is not and has not warmed for 18 years and that the pacific ocean temperatures are cooling.
Then you come on and say it is all not true...
But come back to my premise... We cannot lower global CO2 levels without nuclear war. Do you want to talk your way around that??
i'm sure you get the picture.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Yes we can, read this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
"The treaty itself set no binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms."
So just talking about it works now??
Doer
Well-Known Member
Posted science from NOAA. You post junk,
I say it is panic situation in politics and you prove it by junk.
I write clear explanations of the science and how that ALONE is swaying my opinion about this. You respond with junk. You miss how these Liberal rags are just grasping for readership as they become more and more irrelevant in the debate. Obama has done something.
Trillions will be spent and it will not be personally safe to oppose that. Huffington, Gurardian, and McPaper insult your intelligence with this Junk.
The junk, as I have already pointed out is the Political opposition of one side or another.
But, If I post from Rolling Stone, I can show you how the eco-nuts are gathering forces to hunt you down and hang you for any opposition to this.
That is all junk. You are not listening to me. And I could care less.
The science goes on and like the Ice Age Theory and Evolution, as hard as we try we cannot find any other explanation beyond CO2 is forcing water vapor, is forcing the Ice to melt.
And when we look....yes, there is no other explaination, so far.
You act like I am choosing sides. NOT.
You act like one graph says anything. NO.
You act like I think there is anything that can be done. NOPE.
You want to debate science with someone that knows Scientific Discovery is not debatable. I stick with the evidence I can find from reputable sources like NOAA.
I discuss the forcing of the water vapor now, and the eroding of the Ice Sheets.
You provide junk, to hide your fear, there is nothing to be done. Right.
I fully accept that. But, I don't accept doing nothing. You too must be Protected.
Doerism says use it or lose it. Doerism says us monkeys NEED to do something and not hide in JUNK from fear it could be REAL.
We are doomed as a species if we don't get the hell out of here. If we don't apply the tech, money, willpower and blood we have over the next 200 years we are DEAD.
The fuel runs out, the population crashes, tech sputters out, and we never did get anywhere as a Civilization. All that work for nothing. That is why the Deniers will be hunted, possibly in our lifetime. Doerism is not something I made up, it is something I observe.
The rest is JUNK.
Last edited:
Doer
Well-Known Member
This piece of junk is not even referenced.I can post graphs too!!
Are you sure sobriety is working out for you?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Then why are you wasting our fucking time posting about it like there is??
Focus on what you can change....
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
And if we follow that quote to it's point...
"The treaty itself set no binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. In that sense, the treaty is considered legally non-binding. Instead, the treaty provides a framework for negotiating specific international treaties (called "protocols") that may set binding limits on greenhouse gases."