More science - climate change is a lie!

[LightningCrash]

^^^ This is what I was talking about.

People are just short sighted in their thinking. I have no idea what the wildlife numbers were before or since, but one thing I do know. If there were a sizable impact from the spill Obama and his minions would be screaming it from every mountaintop, but we hear nothing but crickets. I prefer to think in a more complete scenario. Kind of like a year to us is like a nanosecond to the earth. When the politicians start making statements I call BS because I'm looking at a bigger picture. They are just kneejerking 100% of the time.

Because there's no politics around it, this means that there is no impact?
Well then the opposite must be true: Obama makes a big deal about climate change, so that means climate change is real.

Maybe we shouldn't use politics and "bigger picture" conjecture in lieu of evidence.

 

[LightningCrash]

The person making the extraordinary claims is the one who has to show proof, but I will since I know you can't.

The warming that ocurred in 1925-1944, which preceded any major human influences through greenhouse gasses, matches the magnitude and rate of the late 20th century temperature rise, almost identically. So, even during the 20th century itself, during the thermometer record and not having to use proxy data, it is easily demonstratable that the late 20th century temperature rise attributed to manmade greenhouse gasses is not unique at all.

This is a graph reconstructed from the Vostok ice core data showing the recent warming trend, of the past 100 years, in context with other warming trends that have occurred before. The 20th century warming is not unique.

So you're arguing that warming is happening, not contesting the anthropogenic factors as causation, but simply saying the warming trend observed is not unique?

 

[SlugSlinger]

What I don't understand is you liberals are arguing about how statistical models are being used in an incorrect manner, but you say nothing about your supporting information and how you change it to meet your needs.



The animation below alternates between the current graph with error bars, and the 2001 version. The points from the 1880’s are nearly 300% outside of Gavin’s top error bars.

They are adjusting the data by a much larger amount than their own error bars, which is scientific gibberish.

Everything about NASA temperature data reeks of propaganda. It doesn’t pass the most basic sniff tests as legitimate data. The error bars are meaningless green crayon.

 

[doctorjj]

So you're arguing that warming is happening, not contesting the anthropogenic factors as causation, but simply saying the warming trend observed is not unique?

I do believe it is warming. Not as much as most "warmists" would say it is due to their constant data "adjustment". But I have no doubt that it is warming. That being said, they've all fallen for the association is causation fallacy. Just earlier in this thread it was proposed that this warming is unique. That's patently false.

 

[farmerbyron]

Some are for Nuclear energy, but it also has waste/byproduct that's extremely dangerous and long lasting. If they can get solar energy past the 10% efficient rate using common materials, we'll see a boom in it. right now it's costly to produce panels, and they use some nasty metals in them. Been seeing some break throughs using carbon nano tubes and other common-non rare materials. Scientists are working hard on that avenue. I don't understand your statement about carbon taxes tho..

If you don't believe we have a place to store radioactive waste, I suggest you take a drive out through New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. Nuclear waste is not an unmanageable problem. I'm with you on alternative sources of energy, they just aren't viable right now and we aren't going to live like the 18th century because of some warming that may or may not be the result of humans intervention.

Cap and trade is the solution brought by the IPCC to combat climate change. Cap and trade does nothing but transfer wealth. It has zero impact on climate in any way. This is one of the reasons so many of us are suspicious of the "climatologists".

If your going to actually try to learn about actual science. Try reading actual scientific papers and websites. Not bunk websites with gibberish on it. Also a field of planted wheat has no were the amount of bio-diversity that a acre of forest has. Your trying to say acre of wheat is equal to a acre of forest when it comes to processing CO2.

You can sit and deny that humans haven't negatively affected the planet, and we're killing off species faster then ever before in history, cept with a asteroid strike.
I'm no tree loving hippy, but I'm not blind to the obvious impacts we're experiencing. I suggest you take a few classes of basic biology/ecology at your local college.

You do realize that species die off everyday from natural factors right? Extinctions have occurred throughout time. Long before humans had any role. It's a fundamental part of evolution. No doubt we may have hastened the demise of some but have we not also saved a few species?




Kyle, we had a pretty protracted debate a couple weeks ago that I don't believe you participated. I would suggest skimming through it and you will see much of the same arguments and the use of scientific journal sources on both sides.

[video]https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?204823-Ice-Observations-and-Climate-Models&highlight=ice+observations[/video]

 

[Shadowrider]

If your going to actually try to learn about actual science. Try reading actual scientific papers and websites. Not bunk websites with gibberish on it. Also a field of planted wheat has no were the amount of bio-diversity that a acre of forest has. Your trying to say acre of wheat is equal to a acre of forest when it comes to processing CO2.

You can sit and deny that humans haven't negatively affected the planet, and we're killing off species faster then ever before in history, cept with a asteroid strike.
I'm no tree loving hippy, but I'm not blind to the obvious impacts we're experiencing. I suggest you take a few classes of basic biology/ecology at your local college.

Do you even read what others post? Because I specifically stated that I didn't know how they compare, but there was a factor to consider, which you seem unwilling to do. I'm quoting myself so you can't miss it this time.

There is an offset there, I don't know how it compares, but it's there and I've never heard it mentioned. Go into the midwest and look at all the irrigated farmland. Millions of acres of plants eating co2 and producing oxygen that weren't there until recent times.

Have a nice day.

 

[LightningCrash]

What I don't understand is you liberals are arguing about how statistical models are being used in an incorrect manner, but you say nothing about your supporting information and how you change it to meet your needs.

Maybe we can attack liberals here until they show up to argue against your strawman.

 

[The Cow Exploder]

Results from factual observation instead of speculation, how scientific!

 

[TerryMiller]

I suggest you read up on the ecology of the great plains, and what it was like before white settlers killed off the vast roaming herds of bison. Once they were removed, it started a break down of the Tall Grass Prairies entire ecosystem. Once white settlers started plowing up and planting food plants, we started off a chain event that lead to the Great Dust Bowl. Literally a ocean of moisture was lost once settlers started plowing under the deep rooted native plants, and it still has not returned. The underground water basins of the entire great plains is slowly drying up. It won't be replaced in many life times using current water practices. Also your assuming that food stock and non native plants do a better job at storing Carbon. Your not realizing we harvest that carbon in form of food/meat and it re-enters the cycle. It's never stored away.

You need to understand, we're not creating new carbon. we are releasing stored carbon from fossil fuels that was stored inert underground.
I'm of the thought that mother nature does it best when it comes to plants and balancing out the planet. If we can decline our release of CO2 into the Atmosphere, the planet will rebalance it's self. But we have to keep from destroying the existing forests and polluting the oceans to let that happen.

Just for a FYI, I was born and raised it the area of the dust bowl. Some in my family experienced both sides of the "Grapes of Wrath" scenario, in that some went to California and others stayed and stuck it out. Either way, all demonstrated a courage and willingness to suffer through to better times. Having been involved with agriculture and agribusiness over the years, I can tell you that the farming practices of the "early days" is a lot different from what it is now. There is much more "low-till" and "no-till" farming going on that what you are implying. Granted, irrigation over the years has diminished the underground aquifers, but even if the farmers had to go without irrigation in the Oklahoma/Texas Panhandles, things will be completely different from the "Dirty Thirties."

 

[Eagle Eye]

Jumping off a sinking ship!

http://e.businessinsider.com/510956c61e240a9c3f21f252546b7221a6cba8a22b197f06/VGtxrMPoQ-jqi6nyAf87b