Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

global warming

  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#41 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 03:22 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 19 April 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

I don't know how anyone who lives on the planet can deny global warming.  And if we are contributing to that warming we ought to
stop doing that.  We aren't going to stop needing/using fossil fuels for a long time our whole way of doing things is predicated on
their use and not just for getting around but all manner of things need fossil fuel, plastics, so many things.

Oh and carbon dioxide doesn't have to be a "poison" although it is to humans to be bad.  I had a friend who filled up his garage with
it and it killed him, so, it's poison.  I don't know where that new meme came from but it's frickin' retarded to use it that way.  And
I use the word "retarded" in the way that the dictionary means it.

Retarded: slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress

Regarding CO2, it seems to me to be its designation as a pollutant under regulatory nomenclature.
It is like modern powers not wanting to call the traged in Rwanda, or the calls to exterminate Israel "genocide" because if they use such a serious for, for example in the U.N., it means people and governments have to do something to stop it.
While CO2 is a poison to mammals and other animals at certain concentrations, it is also an exhaust product from animals living. It is necessary for plants to grow, so it is a symbiotic balance of sorts.
In a balance, excesses lead to self-correction, more plants grow, scrubbing out more CO2.

The real issue, as I see it, is not a question scientists can argue over about if the earth is, on balance, warming over long periods of recorded time, but rather if change should be imposed because someone is convinced they know better.
If as has been put forward, anthropogenic or otherwise global warming is upon us, then shouldn't those who know best insist that people on the coasts move inland in an orderly and predetermined manner?
Just like no one needs an assault rifle, no one needs to live on the coast.
And if the damage is already done, what makes such a forced migration a bad thing?

Edited by DarthMarley, 19 April 2013 - 03:25 PM.

"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#42 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 05:44 PM

View PostKota, on 19 April 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 19 April 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

How anyone from the Sourh Shore of Long Iskand can argue that global warming is a hoax is beyond me.

Why would anyone think location has anything to do with what a person believes?
Maybe "location" is joining gender, race, religion, sexual preference and income level...on the list of things that are supposed to dictate what we think? Only straight white male Christian billionaires get to oppose big government. IF...they happen to live far away from an east coast shoreline. :eek:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#43 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 05:52 PM

Quote

Any change in the balance between the quantity of energy absorbed compared to the amount emitted affects climate. The "greenhouse effect" is concerned with the infrared radiation given off by the earth. Part of this radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, rather than being lost to space. The gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light primarily are water (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (NO2) and methane (CH4). The gases act as a sort of insulating blanket for the earth, in the same way they would act to lessen heat loss from a greenhouse, hence the name 'greenhouse effect'. It is estimated that the mean global surface temperature of the earth would be -25°C (-13°F) if not for the absorption of energy by carbon dioxide and water.
Correct. Every man made global warming skeptic knows the dreaded GREENHOUSE GASES :eek: are absolutely essential for our continued existence. I recommend you pass this paragraph on to alarmist friends who think greenhouse gases are the rough equivalent of smog.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#44 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 08:40 PM

View Postscherzo, on 19 April 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Quote

Any change in the balance between the quantity of energy absorbed compared to the amount emitted affects climate. The "greenhouse effect" is concerned with the infrared radiation given off by the earth. Part of this radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, rather than being lost to space. The gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light primarily are water (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (NO2) and methane (CH4). The gases act as a sort of insulating blanket for the earth, in the same way they would act to lessen heat loss from a greenhouse, hence the name 'greenhouse effect'. It is estimated that the mean global surface temperature of the earth would be -25°C (-13°F) if not for the absorption of energy by carbon dioxide and water.
Correct. Every man made global warming skeptic knows the dreaded GREENHOUSE GASES :eek: are absolutely essential for our continued existence. I recommend you pass this paragraph on to alarmist friends who think greenhouse gases are the rough equivalent of smog.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#45 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 09:26 PM

Quote

Any change in the balance between the quantity of energy absorbed compared to the amount emitted affects climate.
If carbon dioxide is the only factor affecting climate, why is it that "Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions"? (see first post)
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#46 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 11:22 AM

Whether our activities have long term or short term impact, the fact remains that we should continue to persue alternative energies for our future stability and honestly for my part, I'd rather we not pollute this planet any more than we have to, climate changes or not.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#47 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 11:30 AM

Pollution is bad.
Poison for humans is food for plants.
The issue with "alternative energy" is the same as "alternative medicine."
Once it really is demonstrated to work, it quits being "alternative energy" and becomes just "energy."
We can if we really believe that global warming is going to flood the coast, make people on the coast move. Do we want to do that?
We can, if we think industrialism will kill the species, doom many to die as a result of lack of industry. Do we really want to do that?
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: global warming

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users