ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Ahh I see, thank you for clearing that up...
So I'd guess it'd be like asking where global warming was during the winter?
2014 was definitely the hottest year on record
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
So I'd guess it'd be like asking where global warming was during the winter?
qwizoking
Well-Known Member
no it was 2011!!
i know this aint what the threads about. but some of us are still traumatized.
austin texas averages a dozen 100° days every year. we set a record in 1925 with 69 days.
in 2011 we had 100
also giving our hottest year avg at 72.6
and our hottest day ever at 112°
and driest year. some aeas not having measurable rainfall for 12months
also when i went indoors
i know this aint what the threads about. but some of us are still traumatized.
austin texas averages a dozen 100° days every year. we set a record in 1925 with 69 days.
in 2011 we had 100
also giving our hottest year avg at 72.6
and our hottest day ever at 112°
and driest year. some aeas not having measurable rainfall for 12months
also when i went indoors
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
That chart sucks, lacks order and detail.
Much more detailed and accurate depiction of Creation makes more sense and is recorded. To use it, connect the ends.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Notice the flesh is the only one that can add, subtract, multiply and divide, which is used to create the rest.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I doubt many people would claim the climate isn't changing, it's the extent of our affect on it that is seemingly up for debate.
I exclude myself from that polarising debate altogether and simply push for advancing technology to push humanity to a post carbon era as a matter of common sense.
It's probably the years of sci-fi I've watched, but I'd be embarrassed for humanity if aliens came here and said "So we heard your signal, we travelled 24 light years and this is it? It's a fucking shithole. Heat based technology? Intra-species war? People divided based of levels of melanin?".
But I'm a denier apparently.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Unless you can provide a better rebuttal than that, what more is required, clown?
Problem? What problem? Why isn't the TLT showing an increase congruent with the hypothesis?I thought this shit was settled?
Where's the Magical Heateristical Hotterism?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
I am not required to dance for you for AGW to be correct
I do not have to explain every obscure cherry picked graph you present for AGW to be correct
Do your own work.
What's this an obscure unlinked argument posted by heckler as a vague argument and a request for me go do donkey work?
I thought this shit was settled?
Where's the Magical Heateristical Hotterism?
How very unlike you heckler....
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Cool bananas
Could be the case if your position is that it's not going to be as bad as projected.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Identifying a twitter thread from Gavin Schmidt is now beyond your ken?
I accept your admission of defeat.
Carry on.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Yeah fortunately AGW doesn't need me to answer other people arguments on twitter to be correct...Identifying a twitter thread from Gavin Schmidt is now beyond your ken?
I accept your admission of defeat.
Carry on.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Kiwi took a deep shot, it went deep and holed everything,......wish I saw the reply.........
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Well it's already not quite lining up with predictions and the only solution proposed so far is a tax...
I don't think money will fix it unless it funnelled into primary research.
For example with higher energy density batteries photovoltaic solar panels become practical to the masses again.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
The projections have high ends and low ends. Which projections must you believe to not be a denier?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Which predictions aren't lining up?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
I'm pretty sure that "moving to carbon free energy" has been proposed as a solution...
Won't you still need to pay to change energy infrastructure?
Sure better batteries would definitely have a place in the transition to carbon free
I spose what's the point in doing much about it though when you've already decided that it's "not that bad"
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
My solution involves putting money into primary research in National Academies of Sciences and other advanced labs.Which predictions aren't lining up?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
I'm pretty sure that "moving to carbon free energy" has been proposed as a solution...
Won't you still need to pay to change energy infrastructure?
Sure better batteries would definitely have a place in the transition to carbon free
I spose what's the point in doing much about it though when you've already decided that it's "not that bad"
The Paris Accord is simply "pay up suckers" tho.
I don't often vape pen, but when I do, I get mashed.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Your plan is to do nothing? Resting your hopes on a new unknown technology to save us?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Well our current technology is almost entirely carbon based...
You're not gonna cut emissions without a new technology with a similar energy density, you're just gonna make ordinary people pay up and they're not even the ones doing the real polluting.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
See, this is a good question even if it is sarcastic and rhetorical. And my answer would be that instead of spending money trying to prevent the earth from getting hotter we should spend the money on research on how to be more adaptable to our changing climate.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
I spent about an hour researching where we are at with fusion technology. They are predicting a decade before it is in the serious testing stage. A couple billion dollars would go a long way toward this kind of project.
Similar threads
