The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
I said humans exacerbate climate change, you twit. but they are not the cause, "you pumpkin pie hair cutted freak!"
Generosity, it's a Christian thing
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.
Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?)
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
lol pumpkin pie lmao
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
yo buck tooth you pie licking tree hugger
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
then what caused the huge temperature spike in the last century?
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
I honestly can't answer that and neither can you. You choose to accept whatever the left says. I choose to follow common sense, which happens to be 95% for the democrats. Just not this time.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
actually, i can. it's human activities that have pumped massive amounts of previously sequestered CO2 into the atmoshere, raising atmospheric CO2 all the way to 400 PPM.
no, this is coming from NASA, NOAA, 34 national academies of science, and so on and so forth.
then why are you parroting james inhofe an rick santorum and bobby jindal with their idiotic politicized talking points?
maybe you should listen to the folks at NASA instead of right wing blowhards, dumbass.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
Solar activity there
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
First, measuring the actual temperature is in many cases far from trivial, and even the 0.8°C value should be considered cautiously. There are many effects which introduce systematic errors which are often hard to account for and which may mimic an apparent heating. The classic example is that of the “urban heat island effect”, whereby many ground stations which are located in populated areas measure average warming, not because of global warming itself, but because of the proximity of the stations to human heat sources (such as A/C’s), or simply because the larger amounts of concrete or asphalt surfaces absorb more solar radiation. Measurements of the tropospheric temperature using satellite data over the past 30 years reveals in fact less warming than the surface stations detect.
In addition, many alleged indicators of global warming are not necessarily indicators of warming at all, let alone human induced warming. For example, there are claims that hurricane activity increased due to global warming. Not only is there no clear evidence for this, it is not clear at all whether hurricane activity should in fact increase under warmer conditions (Note that under a warmer Earth, hurricane activity should increase with the elevated ocean temperatures but decrease because of the smaller latitudinal temperature differences. Today, it is not clear which of the two terms dominates!). Another example is Mt. Kilimanjaro. Its ice cap may be melting, but it is probably related to other processes not directly related to 20th century warming. (For example, see Cullen, N.J. et al. 2006. “Kilimanjaro glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and new interpretation of observed 20th century retreat rates”, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33: 10.1029/2006GL027084, who show that most of the glacial melt has taken place in the first half of the 20th century, as an adjustment to a previous drying of the average climate state.)
In any case, the burning question to ask is not the exact size of the total 20th century warming, but instead how large is the human induced component and of course its future effect. One should note that even if there is evidence for some warming (and there is ample of it), this evidence does not necessarily imply that this warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The linkage between the observed warming and humans is not proven and not a necessity, and it is one of the most common mistakes in the current public debate. In Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” for example, we have seen many pieces of evidence pointing to the occurrence of global warming, but not even one indicator that this warming is due to greenhouse gases, or in fact that it is due to any anthropogenic activity whatsoever. This of course does not prove or disprove the existence of such a link, but it does say that we have to be extra careful.
So, is it all a figment of the media? What is the evidence supporting the claim that most of the warming is anthropogenic? It turns out that there is no direct evidence supporting this link! There is no fingerprint which proves that the warming is caused primarily by CO2 or other anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In fact, the two primary “proofs” are circumstantial, and as we shall soon see, very problematic.
The first claim proceeds as follows. We emit greenhouse gases. We know that the greenhouse gases should cause some warming. We also know that there was some warming over the past century. Since we do not have any other satisfactory explanation, the warming should be the result of the elevated greenhouse gas levels. In fact, the proponents of this claim also point out that only if the human contribution to the global energy budget is included in the numerical climate models, only then is it possible to explain the observed warming. With “natural causes” only, the same numerical models cannot explain the observations, they under predict the warming.
The second claim is simple. Given the fact that the temperature increase over the 20th century is apparently unusually fast, it cannot have been the result of natural causes alone. Since we have not seen any similar rise over the past millennium, not in terms of rate nor in absolute temperature change, it is clear that something unnatural is the cause of this “unprecedented” warming, and therefore it must be due to humans.
Both these claims, even if they were true, still cannot convict CO2 as the culprit responsible for the warming. First, we should probably emphasize the obvious. The fact that no other explanation is known for the warming does not prove that an alternative does not exist. As is happens, there is one which is as clear as the light of day. It is the sun. However, addressing this possibility would take out the gist out of the first aforementioned claim. As a result, this alternative explanation was pushed aside as much as possible by the anthropogenic warming protagonists.
Second, the temperature increase over the 20th century is not unique at all. The temperature increase between 1970 and 2000, for example, is very similar to the increase measured between 1910 and 1940, both in terms of rate and absolute size (e.g., see fig. 1). Moreover, we know of past periods during which, without human intervention, it was as warm as it was in the latter half of the 20thcentury, and perhaps even more. Significant evidence indicates, for example, that during the middle ages it was as warm as today. With the presently receding ice on Greenland, it is possible to find Viking graves which were until recently under a long permafrost. Similarly, at different places in the Alps where glacial ice now recedes, it is now possible to find human activity dated to Roman times. Clearly, climate has always changed.
In addition, many alleged indicators of global warming are not necessarily indicators of warming at all, let alone human induced warming. For example, there are claims that hurricane activity increased due to global warming. Not only is there no clear evidence for this, it is not clear at all whether hurricane activity should in fact increase under warmer conditions (Note that under a warmer Earth, hurricane activity should increase with the elevated ocean temperatures but decrease because of the smaller latitudinal temperature differences. Today, it is not clear which of the two terms dominates!). Another example is Mt. Kilimanjaro. Its ice cap may be melting, but it is probably related to other processes not directly related to 20th century warming. (For example, see Cullen, N.J. et al. 2006. “Kilimanjaro glaciers: Recent areal extent from satellite data and new interpretation of observed 20th century retreat rates”, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33: 10.1029/2006GL027084, who show that most of the glacial melt has taken place in the first half of the 20th century, as an adjustment to a previous drying of the average climate state.)
In any case, the burning question to ask is not the exact size of the total 20th century warming, but instead how large is the human induced component and of course its future effect. One should note that even if there is evidence for some warming (and there is ample of it), this evidence does not necessarily imply that this warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The linkage between the observed warming and humans is not proven and not a necessity, and it is one of the most common mistakes in the current public debate. In Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” for example, we have seen many pieces of evidence pointing to the occurrence of global warming, but not even one indicator that this warming is due to greenhouse gases, or in fact that it is due to any anthropogenic activity whatsoever. This of course does not prove or disprove the existence of such a link, but it does say that we have to be extra careful.
So, is it all a figment of the media? What is the evidence supporting the claim that most of the warming is anthropogenic? It turns out that there is no direct evidence supporting this link! There is no fingerprint which proves that the warming is caused primarily by CO2 or other anthropogenic greenhouse gases. In fact, the two primary “proofs” are circumstantial, and as we shall soon see, very problematic.
The first claim proceeds as follows. We emit greenhouse gases. We know that the greenhouse gases should cause some warming. We also know that there was some warming over the past century. Since we do not have any other satisfactory explanation, the warming should be the result of the elevated greenhouse gas levels. In fact, the proponents of this claim also point out that only if the human contribution to the global energy budget is included in the numerical climate models, only then is it possible to explain the observed warming. With “natural causes” only, the same numerical models cannot explain the observations, they under predict the warming.
The second claim is simple. Given the fact that the temperature increase over the 20th century is apparently unusually fast, it cannot have been the result of natural causes alone. Since we have not seen any similar rise over the past millennium, not in terms of rate nor in absolute temperature change, it is clear that something unnatural is the cause of this “unprecedented” warming, and therefore it must be due to humans.
Both these claims, even if they were true, still cannot convict CO2 as the culprit responsible for the warming. First, we should probably emphasize the obvious. The fact that no other explanation is known for the warming does not prove that an alternative does not exist. As is happens, there is one which is as clear as the light of day. It is the sun. However, addressing this possibility would take out the gist out of the first aforementioned claim. As a result, this alternative explanation was pushed aside as much as possible by the anthropogenic warming protagonists.
Second, the temperature increase over the 20th century is not unique at all. The temperature increase between 1970 and 2000, for example, is very similar to the increase measured between 1910 and 1940, both in terms of rate and absolute size (e.g., see fig. 1). Moreover, we know of past periods during which, without human intervention, it was as warm as it was in the latter half of the 20thcentury, and perhaps even more. Significant evidence indicates, for example, that during the middle ages it was as warm as today. With the presently receding ice on Greenland, it is possible to find Viking graves which were until recently under a long permafrost. Similarly, at different places in the Alps where glacial ice now recedes, it is now possible to find human activity dated to Roman times. Clearly, climate has always changed.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nope.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Mastodon Farts. Very real and very pungent.
bravedave
Well-Known Member
Maybe we can bring this back to a point before the Puke deflected, hijacked and then was embarrassed.
Darth, having obviously given much thought to climate, I find it odd that you would offer and an opinion on religious generosity seemingly based on TV evangelists or maybe movies portraying them. Not a representative sampling of who the religious are. OkOk you said it in a joking manner so I will take it as such.
Bottom line is every study out there shows that the "religious" give more than the none and conservatives give more than liberals and left-wing nutcases combined.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
If you took out tithing and mandatory donations churches impose how do you think the numbers would skew?
You disgusting, narcissistic bigot...
http://www.parents.com/blogs/to-the-max/2013/03/06/autism/5-things-people-dont-get-about-the-word-retard/
http://noahsdad.com/spread-the-word-to-end-the-word/
http://www.r-word.org/r-word-effects-of-the-word.aspx
You are nothing but a hypocrit spewing shit.
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Chesus, Would that be like mandatory union dues? Or is it just a church thing?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Not at all like it. You get something back being a union member, and union dues aren't tax deductible like mandatory tithing
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
Got to call BULLSHIT, when I see it. Both the initiation fee and union dues, are tax deductible. Where do you get your Bullshit from?
I dont attend church but I have before and never have I seen mandatory tithing. I have heard the mormon church requires tithing to remain members but not other churches.
The_Herban_Legend
Well-Known Member
There is no mandate on tithing, that I am aware of. Either way, religion needs to be eradicated.
Darth Vapour
Well-Known Member
and Christianity is being killed off wonder why lol its a good thing really enough of the fairy tale gossip really like there is a god out there geez i wonder how many prayers come true everynight
only thing they give me a headache
only thing they give me a headache