Lets talk about another Climate Change Hoax Exposed in Australia...
- Thread starter Hiphoplives4eva
- Start date
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Continuing...@Ill it's good to see you at least agree that the Earth is getting warmer...you're halfway to the truth. If you chart the history of climate change deniers, who are equivalent to flat-earthers at this point, it started with denying the world was getting warmer, then it turned into the world is getting warmer but it's not because of human activity, then it turned into well it could be due to human activity, but we don't know for sure (which seems to be where you're at), and eventually to well humans are making the Earth warmer, but I don't agree with the policies suggested to deal with that. At some point, people need to realize they were wrong and it's time to hang it up and admit the Earth is round.
The problem with the claim that it's not carbon emissions into the atmosphere that is making the Earth warmer is we know for a fact that atmospheric carbon does indeed make the Earth warmer, and if you deny that it's the CO2, you then have to answer for what is because all other conceivable factors are taken into account in the climatological models The AWG-deniers never can answer that.
Increases in CO2 and other greenhouses gases makes the atmosphere warmer by increasing radiative forcing, meaning the molecules trap heat radiation from exiting the atmosphere. As we know, the Earth has gotten about a degree warmer in the past 200 years, and that has coincided with a 35% increase in atmospheric greenhouses gases, CO2 being the most prevalent. That's higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we've ever seen in the 800,000 of data we can ascertain from ice cores.
You talk about warming being due to "natural Earth processes" but that's just a bunch of bullshyt made up to try and deny the existence of the obvious. What are these phantasmagorical "natural processes" you're talking about? The criteria that cause changes in climate are greenhouses gases, atmospheric particulate (such as from volcano), and solar activity. The climate models are robust. Do you think all these climate scientists, from all over the world who all came to the same independent conclusions are are sitting around beating their dikks, making stuff up, and not taking every factor into consideration? They factor in particulate and solar activity, which is not difficult to do. We've had satellites monitoring every action of the Sun for the past 35 years. There's been no significant changes in solar activity, but the Earth is warming faster than ever. AWG deniers will always inevitably to fail to even give a valid hypothesis as to what is making the world hotter if it's not the elephant in the room, the 35 billion tons of CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere every year.
Then I see you resort to another
talking point used by AWG deniers: the claim that the cooling by 0.1 C that took place in the middle part of last century somehow disproves that AWG is occurring. But we already have a good idea of why that happened. It was because of a large amount sulphate aerosols from both human activity and volcanoes that scattered light, cooling the Earth slightly. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/40s-to-70s-cooling-co2-rising The negative forcing of the aerosols was enough to counter the positive forcing of greenhouse gases. Like I said, other factors
that influence climate change are already accounted for in the models.
Also, it was discovered that the decline was a lot less pronounced than what we thought due to a methodology error in recording. Pretty boring, dry stuff, but you can read it here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/langswitch_lang/in
The ice cores are an empirical smoking gun. 800,000 years of data on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
And please don't say some shyt about the lag time.
That's another illogical, wrong AWG denier talking point. You've been hitting on almost all of them.
At the end of the day, simply put, you're wrong, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Human activity is making the Earth warmer. There isn't two sides to this "debate" which equal evidence. It's not even a debate anymore. You just found yourself gravitating toward bad information for whatever reason. Suggesting that virtually every climatologist in the world are all in on some type of grand hoax rivals any idiotic conspiracy theory Alex Jones could dream up. Btw, Alex Jones thinks AWG is a hoax. Even if you don't understand the scientific minutia that well, when you've got Alex Jones, Fox News, and the oil industry on your side, and the virtually the entirety of the world's best scientists on the other side, it's probably time to realize you hopped on the wrong horse.
The problem with the claim that it's not carbon emissions into the atmosphere that is making the Earth warmer is we know for a fact that atmospheric carbon does indeed make the Earth warmer, and if you deny that it's the CO2, you then have to answer for what is because all other conceivable factors are taken into account in the climatological models The AWG-deniers never can answer that.
Increases in CO2 and other greenhouses gases makes the atmosphere warmer by increasing radiative forcing, meaning the molecules trap heat radiation from exiting the atmosphere. As we know, the Earth has gotten about a degree warmer in the past 200 years, and that has coincided with a 35% increase in atmospheric greenhouses gases, CO2 being the most prevalent. That's higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than we've ever seen in the 800,000 of data we can ascertain from ice cores.
You talk about warming being due to "natural Earth processes" but that's just a bunch of bullshyt made up to try and deny the existence of the obvious. What are these phantasmagorical "natural processes" you're talking about? The criteria that cause changes in climate are greenhouses gases, atmospheric particulate (such as from volcano), and solar activity. The climate models are robust. Do you think all these climate scientists, from all over the world who all came to the same independent conclusions are are sitting around beating their dikks, making stuff up, and not taking every factor into consideration? They factor in particulate and solar activity, which is not difficult to do. We've had satellites monitoring every action of the Sun for the past 35 years. There's been no significant changes in solar activity, but the Earth is warming faster than ever. AWG deniers will always inevitably to fail to even give a valid hypothesis as to what is making the world hotter if it's not the elephant in the room, the 35 billion tons of CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere every year.
Then I see you resort to another
talking point used by AWG deniers: the claim that the cooling by 0.1 C that took place in the middle part of last century somehow disproves that AWG is occurring. But we already have a good idea of why that happened. It was because of a large amount sulphate aerosols from both human activity and volcanoes that scattered light, cooling the Earth slightly. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/40s-to-70s-cooling-co2-rising The negative forcing of the aerosols was enough to counter the positive forcing of greenhouse gases. Like I said, other factorsthat influence climate change are already accounted for in the models.
Also, it was discovered that the decline was a lot less pronounced than what we thought due to a methodology error in recording. Pretty boring, dry stuff, but you can read it here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/langswitch_lang/in
The ice cores are an empirical smoking gun. 800,000 years of data on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
And please don't say some shyt about the lag time.
That's another illogical, wrong AWG denier talking point. You've been hitting on almost all of them.At the end of the day, simply put, you're wrong, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Human activity is making the Earth warmer. There isn't two sides to this "debate" which equal evidence. It's not even a debate anymore. You just found yourself gravitating toward bad information for whatever reason. Suggesting that virtually every climatologist in the world are all in on some type of grand hoax rivals any idiotic conspiracy theory Alex Jones could dream up. Btw, Alex Jones thinks AWG is a hoax. Even if you don't understand the scientific minutia that well, when you've got Alex Jones, Fox News, and the oil industry on your side, and the virtually the entirety of the world's best scientists on the other side, it's probably time to realize you hopped on the wrong horse.
Last edited:
Does OP know what spectrophotometry is?
my favorite talking point:
Yall know when all those flights were grounded after 9/11?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...ne-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures
http://www.cracked.com/article_20009_7-bizarre-ways-you-didnt-know-911-changed-world.html
In THREE DAYS we saw a 2 degree global increase in temperate.
Keep thinking that humans can't affect temp.
Yall know when all those flights were grounded after 9/11?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...ne-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures
http://www.cracked.com/article_20009_7-bizarre-ways-you-didnt-know-911-changed-world.html
In THREE DAYS we saw a 2 degree global increase in temperate.
Keep thinking that humans can't affect temp.
It never ceases to amaze me how over 97% of climate scientists agree that this is real, or how Intergovernmental panels are 95% confident that climate change over the last 60 years is man-made, but that's not good enough for some people. Because it's some sort of vast global conspiracy that 90% of the world's scientists are in on.
Then the same people will turn around and suggest that FOX News or some crackpot with a blog proves all the peer-reviewed studies wrong.
But I guess it's not really about science, it's about politics. Gonna be sad when 50 years from now our grandkids are asking up why we screwed up the planet.
If people want to argue over policy to deal with it, I'm cool with that.
But saying the earth isn't getting warmer is just a flat out lie.
Because science operates (as I hope you'd know) based on empiricism and evidence.
have you ever read any academic work outside of wikipedia links?
Read the conclusions of a few articles.
They NEVER definitively prove anything. All they can say is "meh...eh...kinda...maybe...correlation...looks like...could be...etc"
Science isn't objective. It doesn't speak on what it knows. It speaks on only what it can prove. Until it data comes in that DEFINITIVELY shows things then it'll never say "yep. X causes Y"
Bu bu bu the worlds ice caps are melting at an exorbitant rate!
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/1...e-strategic-position-resources-of-antarctica/
The frozen continent is heating up: Countries eye strategic position, resources of Antarctica
Monday, October 28, 2013
- Comments(14)
- Antarctica, but it could become an area of conflict during coming decades.
The continent, of course, is subject to an international treaty that sets aside Antarctica as a scientific preserve, establishes freedom of scientific investigation and bans military activity there. Nevertheless, the continent is seeing an increase in activity that threatens to violate this treaty.
Why?
For one thing, it’s got abundant land. At 5.4 million square miles, Antarctica is 40 percent larger than the United States. There are also abundant natural resources, including large oil and gas fields offshore.
A number of countries already claim territory in Antarctica. (ASPI)
So what’s going on?
According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, in a new report, China is planning to build its fourth base on the continent by 2015, and a number of other nations are ramping up their activities as well. In addition to mineral resources, the continent is also of strategic military importance.
According to the report:
The demilitarisation of Antarctica was a major goal of the Antarctic Treaty, but the treaty was negotiated in a very different world—strategically, technologically and politically — from the one we have today. If we take a broad view of ‘measures of a military nature’, Antarctica is no longer demilitarised, but it’s difficult to define the term. Such measures don’t necessarily have to be carried out by military personnel. Scientific research and development for military purposes can be carried out by civilian scientists and private sector contractors. Antarctic bases are increasingly used for ‘dual use’ scientific research that’s useful for military purposes, including possibly for controlling offensive weapon systems.
Antarctica is also well positioned for spying, the report says.
It’s also telling that a U.S. and New Zealand proposal to designate nearly 900,000 square miles of the Ross Sea into a protected marine area was rejected by Russia and other countries. And even a scaled-back area may be similarly bucked.
In short, the world’s greatest natural and most pristine refuge appears to be increasingly open for development.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 42,423
- Reputation
- 3,805
- Daps
- 152,087
- Reppin
- black love, unity, and music
You're absolutely right scientists are definitely never 100% sure on anything in general. The entire ethos of scientists are to be always skeptical. Hence the reason i find it hilarious why Al Gore and the other lawyers that are pushing expensive climate change schemes are so certain of the effects and causes of global warming, something the scientific community hasn't yet reached a consensus on.
