|
|
Post by ktpelec on May 24, 2012 4:49:16 GMT -5
I'm sorry but it's the other way around, the majority of the experts agree the greenhouse effect is caused by man.
Back to the original Topic, there have been many recent crop failures and livestock losses due to the rise in temperature. Should we just ignore this and hope it gets better, not worse, or try and do something to insure wide spread starving doesn't happen in our future?
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on May 24, 2012 21:05:44 GMT -5
1000s of scientists agree with me. The only criteria required for the paper that has 1000's of scientists agreeing was a bachelor’s degree. No knowledge of the climate was required. Now, you build trucks, but does that make you qualified to step into a manufacturing plant - regardless of product - and be an expert on it? No offense Marcus, but what kind of scientific degree do you have to back up this claim? Let's see, should I believe an average middle class auto worker, or thousands of qualified scientists across the globe with years of experience in the field of study.. Its only a hand full of scientists that back this theory. Sure it is only a “handful of scientists,” but there are only a handful of people that study the climate, and 97% of the experts agree the climate is warming and is most likely caused by human activity. Would you want a podiatrist to perform heart surgery on you or a cardiologist? Listen to the experts in a given field - not those who have the most to lose or gain. tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by ackspac on May 24, 2012 21:53:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on May 25, 2012 5:43:24 GMT -5
I can't watch the video on my phone - I will watch it this weekend.
Ktpelec, its hard not to get sidetracked on this issue.
With losses from flooding on the mississippi river last year, drought around texas drying up manmade lakes to the point that farmers have been told they will not receive water for their crops this year, the base of the food chain in the bering sea losing its ability to create shells is in jeopardy more flooding in the northeast, now frost killing fruits in the north... Dont worry its just the food chain. Its not our fault and there is nothing we can do about it, so just suck it up and start paying whatever price foreign countries tell us to.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on May 26, 2012 5:12:28 GMT -5
The expert’s statement at 10:20 " Carbon dioxide is an essential element in the earth’s climate control system. And if we didn’t have it, it would be too cold for humanity to be here.” Does anyone disagree with the experts statement that co2 is a part of the climate control system? The expert claimed it would be too cold without it. So, what amount of co2 is needed in the atmosphere in order to keep the climate warm enough for us to survive? Roughly the same as it has been for the last 10k years would be my guess since it is the period that we have benefited the most. Once you find the range of co2 that will keep the climate stable, what will happen if that "stable" amount is doubled in just a few hundred years? www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=2 a simple pic explaining carbon cycle “97% of all co2 emitted every year around the world is naturally caused; only about 3% is from humans.” The experts statement. The earth cycles carbon through natural processes; putting some in the atmosphere through decaying plants, and taking some out by plant growth and the oceans. For arguments sake we will use the experts numbers of 97% and 3% - I don’t believe this is accurate but the exact numbers are not needed for this discussion. The amount of carbon the planet takes out of the atmosphere yearly is about the same as it puts in; otherwise the climate would have increased/decreased. Let’s say the amount the planet can cycle is 99% of what is produced, leaving humans only contributing 1% above what the planet can cycle out of the atmosphere (this is what is happening btw, putting just a little more than the planet can absorb) . That 1% is minimal, but is still more than the planet can currently pull out of the atmosphere. This 1% increase per year over 100 years doubles the amount in the air and adjusts the climate control knob up. Now back to the earlier question, what effect would a doubling of co2 have on the climate? A 2 minute video on identifying where the carbon increase is coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by bulldognuts on Jun 17, 2012 10:31:26 GMT -5
I found this,and thought it was kind of funny,nothing like being cold that will change an alarmist mind. On a more serious note, I believe over the next few years we are going to see more of the experts start to recant when they realize as they get older and near the end of their lives and will not want their wild predictions to be how they are remembered. www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/15/james-lovelock-interview-gaia-theory |
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Jun 17, 2012 11:24:16 GMT -5
The Topic wasn't "wild predictions" though, it was 15000 actual temperature records that had been broken just in the month of May.
I guess thinking those don't mean anything could be a "wild prediction" also...
|
|
|
|
Post by ackspac on Jun 18, 2012 18:42:31 GMT -5
The Topic wasn't "wild predictions" though, it was 15000 actual temperature records that had been broken just in the month of May. I guess thinking those don't mean anything could be a "wild prediction" also... Correct. But there were no records of temps from the early 1800's to the begining of time. So this is based on a very short time period. |
|
|
|
Post by bulldognuts on Jun 18, 2012 18:50:12 GMT -5
I guess I should have started a new thread, or found one more in line with the link posted .
It is still a pretty good read for us deniers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Jun 18, 2012 20:33:33 GMT -5
The Topic wasn't "wild predictions" though, it was 15000 actual temperature records that had been broken just in the month of May. I guess thinking those don't mean anything could be a "wild prediction" also... Correct. But there were no records of temps from the early 1800's to the begining of time. So this is based on a very short time period. Yes it is, and so is the span of time that humans have existed on this planet. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jun 22, 2012 5:15:18 GMT -5
We can't disregard the information we have just because we do not know everything back to the formation of the planet. What we can do is continue to improve our understanding in the areas we are lacking in, and make the best decisions on the info we have. Spending our time working in a factory we do not have the time to decipher all of the info that scientists have learned; to disregard their conclusions is the same as your boss ignoring you concerning your job. At least consider what the experts (climate scientists) in this field have to say before making your decision; they probably have a much better understanding of their field than you reslize or give them credit for.
One more short video - 2 minutes
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 22, 2012 9:03:55 GMT -5
"Expert" in climate science?
The experts have problems telling me if its going to rain in a 24 hour window yet I am suppose to believe them on more complex predictions?
The climate is cyclic and much more powerful than anything man can muster to alter it if we wanted to. If the planet is getting hotter then we are along for the ride.
(We had an ice age once too)
|
|
|
|
Post by keithf on Jun 22, 2012 11:57:10 GMT -5
wait..so there is no ice age like the experts predicted 30 years ago? anybody wanna buy some parkas?
the only facts you need to know, are that the overwhelming majority of the climate change freaks are liberals that want more government control over our everyday lives. its reall not hard to see, if you want to look.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jun 24, 2012 5:26:59 GMT -5
A natural cycle; finally, someone has a new hypothesis that explains climate science! Now, all you need to do is look up all the records that have been collected through ice cores, geological records, lake sediment or whatever new sources of information that scientists have missed to prove it. Then, write a paper and submit it to a journal for review. If you make it happen you will easily be a millionaire. Good luck.
Btw, you may want to learn the difference between climate and weather before you begin.
Keith - Got it. The only fact needed or that you have is that it is a conspiracy theory... so what evidence do you have to prove the conspiracy?
|
|
|
|
Post by tryingtomakeit on Jun 24, 2012 5:49:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Jun 24, 2012 12:31:00 GMT -5
A natural cycle; finally, someone has a new hypothesis that explains climate science! Now, all you need to do is look up all the records that have been collected through ice cores, geological records, lake sediment or whatever new sources of information that scientists have missed to prove it. Then, write a paper and submit it to a journal for review. If you make it happen you will easily be a millionaire. Good luck. Btw, you may want to learn the difference between climate and weather before you begin. Keith - Got it. The only fact needed or that you have is that it is a conspiracy theory... so what evidence do you have to prove the conspiracy? The noxious hot air emissions coming from the vent hole under your nose add temperature to the climate and weather pattern as well.  |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jun 24, 2012 20:52:41 GMT -5
If natural cycle is part of your hypothesis maybe you should start by looking up the definition of cycle.
In order to be considered a cycle for climate, you would need to have similar time periods of heating and cooling. The pic you are showing does not do that.
Each change is caused by something. Your picture shows it is not cyclic. Not that it matters because the information provided by the two authors is outdated and nowhere near accurate.
How can random events like volcanoes and hot air emmisions from vent holes contribute to cyclic systems and not disrupt the cycle?
Keep looking
|
|
|
|
Post by lap65 on Jun 24, 2012 21:17:13 GMT -5
We sure haven't broken any records here, with the exception of a couple of weeks this has been one of the mildest nicest springs I can remember
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Jun 24, 2012 23:39:25 GMT -5
I can't argue with that one. The season seemed to start early, setting these records and then leveling off.
Btw this 30 day record was set in march not may. Which is a part of what the original post was about; the effect the changing climate has on food supplies. In this case early spring like conditions.
|
|
