Global Warming

[Rokerijdude11]

Ahhhh. Name calling. Nothing intelligent to say huh?
whatever dude
You said:

"And again you didnt read??? you just responded!!!........How MUCH LARGER WERE THE GLACIERS THEN?..........and how much more water at the poles, was in the ICE PACK, in these midevil periods? Both are CONSIDERABLY MORE, therefore the WARMER temps, wouldnt have had the same effect..............But again im repeating myself, and you probably will not read this either.............. im finding this to quite tiresome with you.."

This is clearly stating that large ice doesn't melt at the same rate as small ice at any given temperatue above freezing which is patently untrue.


no....God what is it with you Inferring things i never said? this is your lil game of choice again i tire of your charade.......

its clearly demonstrating that there was far far more Ice to melt at that time .Obviously the melt rate is the same ........the difference is obvious

all you school kids try this at home take a 2 inch square block of ice place it on a cookie sheet...........take a ten inch Block of ice and place it next to the other.place them in the oven on "warm" ...........tell us which one melts first........and how much longer did it take the larger cube to melt? PFFFFFFT


Pollution and climate change are two entirely different issues. The amount of greenhouse gas that we put into the atmosphere is less than the natural deviation in the earth's own greenhouse gas machinery from year to year.


while they are different things technically...theres pale with that technicality again Im starting to highly doubt your age based on your debate tactics btw friend......they are seperate but they do affect each other and intertwine each other......we have a differing of opinion here Btw


Show me some hard evidence that we have contributed to the warming of the earth. While you are at it, perhaps you can explain why mars, mercury, and venus are warming right along with us at the same rate.


well sir perhaps if i was a scientist and had studied Mars mercury etc id have a hard hitting scientific response........based on your response you have been doing Googles as you go.Quite allright its understandable for a gentleman of your implied calibre......Besides of which lets stay on topic shall we no tangent spinning we are talking about Earths Global warming...So Oh great scientific Mind of HOP tell us is it your total position that


NONE of the pollutions or increased Co2 produced By the worlds Population has ANY EFFECT on our globe at all whatsoever? thats what your saying isnt it? yes it is you are telling us that we havent contributed to any increases in emissions over the last 50 years right? throughout all of the industrial build up and population explosion

and we havent affected the Globes make up one little iota? hahahahahahahah

funny dude Can you provide me/us with EXACT scientific data that COMPLETLY supports your outlandish opinins that our increased emissions have Done NOTHING to change the make up of our world?



Personal attacks? Wandering off the subject aren't you? If you can't defend your position, why bring it up in the first place?


This coming from a man who just tried to deviate the conversation by Muddying things up with Mars and Mercury? yes but of course arent we the pot calling the kettle black? your actually amusing friend.... you "Know It all" on any given subject"!! yes sir you are the superior being....Here let me quote one of your fine responses to me shall i ? yes i shall...............Btw i am doing fine with my position, the problem here is your continual inferrances, and implications, and writing out of context!! the readers can see for themselves

Palerider says

"Unsubstantiated opinions seem to be your stock in trade.

hmmmmm sounds eerily familiar eh?


By the way, look back through this thread. I provide plenty of evidence to support my position. So far, you have provided nothing to dispute it but your uncorroborated opinion.

No sir Im afraid your entirely mistaken! All we have seen from you in this thread, is a whole lot of wind, and OPINION!!! .I havent seen you yet provide any "evidence", besides your Un substantiated Opinions! Yes the readers can go back, and see this for themselves......

Oh i get it .....somehow your opinions, are valid as evidence!! oh im sorry My bad!! Your ridiculous, yes T-B was right about you ....I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a period of time.


But after repeated dealings with you, im coming to learn she is correct. you are not all that you appear to be at the surface!!! Nice front dude, had me there for a bit!! no longer though, as we have continued your tactics become glaringly obvious to all of the readers

OK, lets see some credible science that says that global warming COULD cause an ice age.

yes that correct.is there a problem with that? i mean seriously dude your funny.have a nice day.

 

[palerider]

No sir Im afraid your entirely mistaken! All we have seen from you in this thread, is a whole lot of wind, and OPINION!!! .I havent seen you yet provide any "evidence", besides your Un substantiated Opinions! Yes the readers can go back, and see this for themselves......

Perhaps first, you should go back and see for yourself.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1756&postcount=29

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1931&postcount=54

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2254&postcount=94

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3561&postcount=120

So it seems that I have provided support for my postion. Now I suppose that you are going to claim that you didn't say that I haven't provided anything to corroborate my argument.

But after repeated dealings with you, im coming to learn she is correct. you are not all that you appear to be at the surface!!! Nice front dude, had me there for a bit!! no longer though, as we have continued your tactics become glaringly obvious to all of the readers

What is glaringly obvious is that you very quickly run out of actual arguments and decend to insult, name calling, and personal attack in lieu of real debate on any given issue.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Okay if you say so

 

[palerider]

Okay if you say so

No. I didn't just say so, I brought positive proof that you were wrong in your statement.

 

[Fonz]

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_video=85601

 

[Fonz]

Allright, im not gonna read through the entire thread.

So I just have to say that Global Warming is happening, the majority of the evidence suggests that man is hugely influencing it and I'm the Fonz, my buddy Roke linked me here.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Allright, im not gonna read through the entire thread.

So I just have to say that Global Warming is happening, the majority of the evidence suggests that man is hugely influencing it and I'm the Fonz, my buddy Roke linked me here.

Then show us some evidence, I'm sure it's been refuted somewhere in this thread already.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

No. I didn't just say so, I brought positive proof that you were wrong in your statement.

yeah Uh Huh...ok bud no problem man your right..dont swaet it dude. you said so

have a nice day

 

[Fonz]

Then show us some evidence, I'm sure it's been refuted somewhere in this thread already.

Sure.


http://www.nasonline.org/site/DocServer/USFOS04-SarahDas.pdf?docID=2439

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/an-abrupt-climate-change-scena.pdf


what are the refutations? I'll debunk the myths for ya. Im quite versed in all the lies and conspiracy stories that the anti-global warming crowd pushes to further ther agenda.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Sure.


http://www.nasonline.org/site/DocServer/USFOS04-SarahDas.pdf?docID=2439

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/an-abrupt-climate-change-scena.pdf

EPA? Greenpeace?

what are the refutations? I'll debunk the myths for ya. Im quite versed in all the lies and conspiracy stories that the anti-global warming crowd pushes to further ther agenda.

Then you have 15 pages of thread to sift through. I'm not really doing to go and copy and paste all of our old arguments. Just click on a page and go.

MY primary argument is that the real issue is global cooling. Warming is better -- always has been always will. The ice is the real beast snarling at the door.

I base my argument over the fact that we are presently experiencing the Solar Maximum.

NASA scientists recently reported that the Sun has just undergone an important change. Our star's magnetic field has flipped. The Sun's magnetic north pole, which was in the northern hemisphere just a few years ago, now points south.

"This always happens around the time of solar maximum," says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the Marshall Space Flight Center. "The magnetic poles exchange places at the peak of the sunspot cycle. In fact, it's a good indication that Solar Max is really here."

So if you are willing to concede that the Sun is the primary source of warming, and since the sun is currently at its solar maximum, if you have any knowledge about earth's paleohistory you know that that this means that temperatures are going to begin to drop (we're talking over hundreds of years here) and its only a matter of time before the next ice age.

 

[mr universe]

And Earth can just as easily take a turn for the colder.

A general characteristic of your is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough.

Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

Trends in annual mean temperature anomalies for the globe show relatively stable temperatures from the beginning of the record through about 1910, with relatively rapid and steady warming through the early 1940s, followed by another period of relatively stable temperatures through the mid-1970s. From this point onward, another rapid rise similar to that in the earlier part of the century is observed. Nineteen ninety-eight was the warmest year of the global mean temperature series to date (0.58°C above the 1961-1990 reference period mean), followed by 2005 (0.48°C above). [Jones et al. (1999) report the 1961-1990 reference period means for the globe, northern hemisphere, and southern hemisphere as 14.0°C, 14.6°C, and 13.4°C, respectively.] Nine of the ten warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past ten years (1995-2004). The only year in the last ten not among the warmest ten is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The ten warmest years, in descending order, are 1998, 2005, 2003 and 2002 (tie), 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999, and 1990. A linear regression model applied to the global annual anomalies indicates a warming trend of about 0.69°C since the record began in the mid-nineteenth century.

People who blame humans for global warming do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change.

Paraphrased from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

The point is that temperatures are remaining warmer look at the top ten years, of the five warmest years, four of them have been the most recent.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

 

[mr universe]

EPA? Greenpeace?



I base my argument over the fact that we are presently experiencing the Solar Maximum.

NASA scientists recently reported that the Sun has just undergone an important change. Our star's magnetic field has flipped. The Sun's magnetic north pole, which was in the northern hemisphere just a few years ago, now points south.

"This always happens around the time of solar maximum," says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the Marshall Space Flight Center. "The magnetic poles exchange places at the peak of the sunspot cycle. In fact, it's a good indication that Solar Max is really here."

So if you are willing to concede that the Sun is the primary source of warming, and since the sun is currently at its solar maximum, if you have any knowledge about earth's paleohistory you know that that this means that temperatures are going to begin to drop (we're talking over hundreds of years here) and its only a matter of time before the next ice age.

did you know that the solar maximum occurs every eleven years??

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/scycle.html

 

[USMC the Almighty]

You ignore the fundamental unreliability of scientific data. Perhaps the scientists have simply collected more accurate data, or have revised their methods over the last 20 years to a measurement that consistenty yields higher temperatures.

The earth is said to be 4.5 billion years old. (4,500,000,000). We have "accurate" (and I use that term loosely) temperature measurements for about 100 years. This would be actual written down data that was observed by humans and recorded.

So doing the math that's a sampling rate of 100/4,500,000,000 or 2.2e-8 or 0.000000022%

So let me get this straight. We are supposed to believe these "scientists" with this kind of data? We are going to base policy on a sampling rate this low? That’s just bad science.

You can't make correct assumptions on that small of a sampling. Its not even valid to guess.

One last thing, to take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.

 

[mr universe]

did you know that the solar maximum occurs every eleven years??

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/scycle.html

you ignore solar facts

 

[mr universe]

You ignore the fundamental unreliability of scientific data. Perhaps the scientists have simply collected more accurate data, or have revised their methods over the last 20 years to a measurement that consistenty yields higher temperatures.

The earth is said to be 4.5 billion years old. (4,500,000,000). We have "accurate" (and I use that term loosely) temperature measurements for about 100 years. This would be actual written down data that was observed by humans and recorded.

So doing the math that's a sampling rate of 100/4,500,000,000 or 2.2e-8 or 0.000000022%

So let me get this straight. We are supposed to believe these "scientists" with this kind of data? We are going to base policy on a sampling rate this low? That’s just bad science.

You can't make correct assumptions on that small of a sampling. Its not even valid to guess.

One last thing, to take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.

easy ways of telling temperature:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/treestel.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050622134142.htm