FarkLark-

what did you fix. looks like you added some text to my post. not sure you call making shiat up fixing anything. nice try at being an asshat though.

dallashockey69

global warming is easier to prove than the existence of god

Ba-ZING!

/are you a Giants fan, or is my heavily biased mind making things up?

Mosey: To put that in perspective, the United States has that amount of change in documented births each two days. (12,000 births a day).

You really have no concept of math at all. Why don't you run the numbers again there, Sparky.

Uncle Karl


spacechicken170am: Yes I pick and choose my science that's called an opinion.

No, an opinion is when I say "Earl Grey is the greatest kind of tea", as opposed to someone saying "The earth is flat". The former is an opinion, the latter is what an idiot says.


opinion- a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

So you believe every single scientific theory? No you don't. You pick and choose your thoeries. What makes you pick certain theories and reject others? Possibly you believe that some theories are better supported than others. That would be an opinion. I believe gravity is better supported therefore I believe the theory of gravity. I do not beleive however that man made global warming is better supported, therefore I reject that theory.

There is NO global warming.

Warming would require the earth be able to sustain an increase in average atmospheric temperature and this it cannot do. The earth's atmosphere is NOT a closed system and is regulated automatically by two methods. The first is electrostatics.

Electrostatics involve the charge effects of the gasses and magnetospheric influence over distribution and flow of such positive, neutral and negatively charged masses as form within the turbulence and moisture cycles of the planet.

It is this electrostatic effect that keeps the ozone from closing over the south pole. Ozone has 3 oxigen and has a clear energy charge which is repelled by the southern magnetic charge of the planetary magnetic effect. That's right... we do the depletion and the planet chooses where to make the hole. Don't worry about ozone tho, that's the least you have to worry about.


The second system is coupled directly to gravitational pull. Sadly this is one that is a "lossy" system in that once we LOOSE the damned air we don't really get it back.
The solar wind provides oxigen, nitrogen and even a little carbon that we can sloooowly, ever so slowly recoup. The trouble is that the earth's atmosphere is NOT a closed system and the models the "global warmists" use assume it is.

If you heat up the earth's atmosphere it EXPANDS AND COOLS AUTOMATICALLY THROUGH THERMODYNAMIC PRESSURE. That's right, you burn a rainforrest and the atmosphere gets BIGGER. It CAN get big enough to expand beyond the direct reach of gravity's power to keep it in and it is automatically buffered by the ocean which contains hydrogen and oxigen. As we lose atmosphere we lose ocean and don't detect a change in atmospheric mass over a period of years.

The models used by the "global warmists" do not take THERMODYNAMICS into account, they treat ALL increases in energy as localized temperature. Additionally they were developed to EXPLAIN datasets that were inherently inaccurate to begin with.

You've heard of Murphy's Law I assume. You may also have heard of "chaos theory" and the underlaying theory of a limitation of predictability. This underlaying limitation on mathematical predictability when applied to the real world produced a basal point of thermodynamic linearity. When something is so wholy unpredictable as to appear random in meteorlogical modeling it is because it has dropped through the lower side of the math of prediction and simply negated itself through thermodynamic processes.

THIS mathematical line is the one we have to worry about, THIS is the danger indicator. When weather becomes less predictable in local and global patterns it means we are CHANGING the ammount of energy we are putting into the system OR the system itself is changing the ammount of energy it is dispersing off the earth and is the underlaying problem with global and regional weather prediction.

When we add energy into the earth's gaseous shell we produce a larger variation to the local thermodynamics than is produced by sun and moon alone. This larger variation increases the local effect on the local and regional weather patterns. If we change the local input over an entire region we will change the regional and continental patterns.

Right now we are introducing thermodynamic energy into almost every portion of the globe in excess of the "natural" state input. This input leads ahead of temperature increases and lags behind temperature decreases.

The net effect of the desire to have a dry, moderately warm and safe home produces thermodynamic energy that is released into the atmosphere, whether by power generation for heating or power generation for cooling, all are net gains of energy to the atmosphere but they are NOT "heat energy" they are actual physical force.

When you produce a blast of hot air outside it will INVARIABLY rise from the ground level, thus producing a mechanical action while it raises through the atmsophere until it has lost enough pressure to become stabilized. Like a spice blow from a Shai-halud it will rise until it escapes if it is large and powerful enough.

How large is powerful enough? We don't know. We know that there is at some level a mathematical point at which a blast of thermodynamic energy could POSSIBLY eject a portion of the atmosphere from the earth but we don't understand enough about our atmosphere to even begin to predict what happens above the clouds. NASA admits this!

We're not talking nuclear or even thermonuclear levels, we're not talking massive volcanic levels of thermodynamic heat. We're talking mathematicaly HUGE ammounts of input.

Scientists have often conjectured that the only way dinosaurs could have existed would be if the earth had more atmosphere. Well, it did at one point and geologists have proven the data. The interesting thing is that at the time the earth had more WATER and thus with the larger ammount of water and atmosphere it had MORE GRAVITY. This not including the moon being more distant...

The moon puts energy, thermodynamic energy, into the systems of the earth by moving the lagrange 0 around inside our planet about it's mechanical axis kneeding the core like a giant dough hook. The moon has slowly gotten further away from the earth by a tiny ammount, this tiny ammount probably is in response to the reduction in planetary gravity from loss of atmosphere and oceanic ballast. If say we gained oh, what, 5% increase in planetary mass due to collection of solar wind in our magnetosphere or a "soft" commetary collision the moon might start coming back in to increase the energy of the planet until the atmosphere boils off enough mass to let it go back out again.

Betcha you didn't get taught THAT one in your diploma mill school!

These models they use to try to prove "global warming" also don't take plate tectonics into account. If say half the earth was water and half was surface and it wobbled a lot it would produce a great deal more thermodynamic energy on it's own and produce much more drastic regional climactic systems.

If say the earth's plates were ALL separate and the ocean was directly ballasting the heat into an even output across all regions of the planet because 99%+ of the volcanic activity was occuring deep we'd have a completely different and much more stable thermodynamic system that would be much more likely to be predicted accurately.

Additionally we have OCEAN CURRENTS which to some extent can hide portions of seashore or expose other surfaces due to local mechanical effects from the flow of the tides.

So we have mechanical induction energy input from the moon, we have a varying planetary surface mechanic, we have solar input of photonic and electrostatics as well as mass induction through the nitrogen, oxegen and carbon in the solar wind. We have forrest fires, variations in gravity due to variations in the thickness of the atmosphere... all sorts of fun things.

the "global warming" models take NONE of these MASSIVE thermodynamic energy sources into account... and they also don't deal with the mathematics AS thermodynamics, they deal with them as "heat energy" which simply does not exist.

So we have a bunch of unemployed politically active halfwits with fake degrees producing piles of work from synthesized datasets through faulty mathematics telling us that we're gonna have to do this that and the other to reduce our danger to the planet.

Uh, hey "planetologists"... human bodies are the #2 generator of heat on the planet.

Sun, Bodyheat, geological, electrostatics, gravitational, industrial. That's the order.

Industrial is at the BOTTOM of the list.

Strider817
Really just trying to show that alot of this seems to be reactionary and emotional based.

Yes, the histrionics displayed by some trying to show that global warming is a threat are not much help. But the fact of the matter is that it is happening, and that it is having a negative impact today. Along the present course in thirty to fifty years things will be much worse as up to 100 million people could be displaced from their homes in low lying coastal areas.

What is frustrating about this subject is that a 5% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions per decade would take us off our current course towards disaster. Increasing automotive gas millage, practicing carbon dioxide sequestration at power plants, and developing alternative energy sources will over time end the accellerated rate at which carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere... and the earth's natural processes will eventually take care of it on its own.

Giants fan as long as they beat the Cowboys...who suck major ass.

A. Humans are not the cause of all carbon monoxide.
B. Humans are responsible for the increase of carbon monoxide.
But how can B. be true if A. is true? Simple. We have killed those crazy CO2 eating things known as trees and plants. I'm sure some of you took science in middle school, right? I think they even taught that little nugget of wisdom right along side creationism in Kansas, folks.

You can't convince stupid people of things that they do not want to believe. Your best bet is to do what you can do to help regardless of whether or not your neighbors are doing anything.

fact- The earth is in a warming trend.

fact- This trend is exceeding natural cyclical rates and values.

fact- almost 50% of Americans believe the earth is only 6000 years old... those people obviously don't put much faith in the evil scientists and their 'global warming'

/drives a v6 toyota
//doesnt mind people driving massive SUVs, but personally got rid of mine in 2002 (k5 blazers are still win)
///hates smug people on both sides of the arguments

prjindigo:

I am shocked, shocked I tell ya.

/Come back when you've got that published in a peer reviewed journal
//Or when you've put some facts and evidence in that rant instead of just making random (false) assertions

that's good enough for me.

/returns to hiding place until next september

Cast-

who is this 50% of americans who only believe the earth is 6000 years old? is that a real stat? i am not arguing, just in awe. how can THAT many people be THAT stupid? seriously?

prjindigo = a true revolutionary

dallas

we re-elected Bush, didn't we?

dallashockey69:

"According to a 2006 Gallup poll,[25] about 46% of Americans believe in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution. Only 13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any supernatural intervention."

Queso-

you are right. so that would be 51% of americans who believe the earth is only 6000 years old. i was right when i said earlier that arguing with people who deny global warming is like arguling with little kids who say "i know you are, what am i?"

dallashockey69


Queso-

you are right. so that would be 51% of americans who believe the earth is only 6000 years old. i was right when i said earlier that arguing with people who deny global warming is like arguling with little kids who say "i know you are, what am i?"

It goes both ways kid. Folks on your side pull the same shiat.

/Fark the Giants

Queso-

yet another example. thanks cider.

ok, Krispy is a tard... next tard please?

on the other hand, the weather is gonna get NASTY AS HELL

oh? I learned the hard way. I went to classes!

http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys.2ed/heat.html
Comes out that you sitting there, which would be the #1 thing the world is doing, produces about 60 watts heat energy...
420 billion watts of HEAT energy, online 24 hours per day... some of it is actually running higher output, like say joggers or non-industrialized sweatshop workers running at over 700 watts output.

I won't show you the math Krispy, because you wouldn't believe in its existance.

NightOwl2255-

your point is?

KrispyKringle: Can you please tell me the model used for that graph? I'd love to hear it, because that thing doesn't match any of the ones I've ever seen. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd love to hear the methodology used before jumping on one graph hotlinked from a random website.


sure: http://www.scotese.com/climate1.htm

Also note that the historical data goes back 600 million years vs. 4.5 million years in your graph. 4.5 million years would fall into the zone on the far right of the graph.

prjindigo
There is NO global warming.

You'll have to pardon me if I'm reluctant to trust scientific advice from someone who can't spell "oxygen".

Oh, and you also entirely missed the above point that the majority of global warming goes into the oceans rather than the atmosphere.

prjindigo

TLDR


Also: if you are going to take the trouble to break the giant wall of text into paragraphs, hit spellcheck for us, ok?

prjindgo:

It is this electrostatic effect that keeps the ozone from closing over the south pole. Ozone has 3 oxigen and has a clear energy charge which is repelled by the southern magnetic charge of the planetary magnetic effect. That's right... we do the depletion and the planet chooses where to make the hole. Don't worry about ozone tho, that's the least you have to worry about.

The south pole of the earth is the north end of the earth's magnetic field.

yes everyone...you figured it out. global warming is a hoax. for what reason? not sure. us libs just thought it would be fun to screw with the conservatives.

It always makes me smile that dumb truck drivers from Bumfark, Ohio seem to be convinced that they know more about climate than climate scientists, who actually study these things in detail for years and years and years.

The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in unison over man-made global warming. If there is dissent, it's over the precise rapidity at which the danger they all predict will occur.

You all know fark all about climate science. Listen to the people who do, and they are all saying that man-made pollution has and will continue to cause the earth to heat up, with consequent effects on global climate.

Shattersoul: Do me a favor, stand underneath this ladder while I attempt to "prove" gravity with this bowling ball that I will release above your head....


Actually, all you would prove is "intelligent falling."

The headline is more correct than you think.

The libs did not fake the disappearance of the island, but they did fake the "fact" that this has anything to do with global warming.

/believes 100% in global warming
//believes 0% of the liberal BS about it
///global warming is not the cause of every problem
//shashies don't cause global warming
/I hope

farkingfun:

I think you misunderstood. You gave me a link to general methods used. I know that.

I was asking what model was used for that graph.

Not impressed

prjindigo:

No human or god can match
Nature's simultaneous 4 day
rotation in 1 Earth rotation.

No human has a right to
believe wrong - for that
would be evil thinking.

Ignorance of 4 days is evil,
Evil educators teach 1 day.
1 day will destroy humans.

/timecube

Global Warming is coming for you and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it!

Go ahead and change all your light bulbs and drive a Prius if you want, Hippies. Too bad your still gonna die!!!

NightOwl2255:

Er, what?

You're not making much sense.

The island was on a river delta. River deltas change all the time, global warming or no.

prjindigo: I think you just re-invented the timecube there.

soakitincider

/Fark the Giants

too late. They've succeeded in farking themselves.

The remaining question, can i walk around on this island in waders? How bout stilts?

March_Hare:

Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one to think that.

/OPPOSITES CREATE.
//Mother and father gave me birth, not a queer jew god.

Approves.

YoggiSothoth, Technodaoist, KrispyKringle

So I take it you guys did not bother to read the document but would rather continue the path of reacting to sound bites as an informed decision?

Perhaps this is the problem.

GW is highly political as it,

1) Gives instant fame and fortune to those peddling it.

2) Used to polarize people in order to demonize those who disagree with "saving the planet" BS.

3) Used as a vehicle to get GW saviors elected to public service (re: #2)

So to try to distance its political aspects is ridiculous as it is what fuels GW's existance. The pamphlet points this out in spades.

Read the pamphlet, please.

Go titans!
/not fron tennessee
//VY for all you yankees!

prjindigo

There is NO global warming.


Yeah right. As if I'm going to take scientific advice from a guy who can't even spell oxygen!

//Mother and father gave me birth, not a queer jew god.

The straight God is pretty good at giving life too

Apologies for the tome, but I think this needs to be said:

Putting asside the political urinating contest that's been going on for a while now..

Those who deny global warming are correct in saying that there is no conclusive proof that the warming trend we are experiencing isn't a natural occurrence. For all intents and purposes it is a natural occurrence. However, the rate at which it's happening seems to be accellerated. Checking ice cores from the antarctic, and geologic strata, shows that there has been a cycle of cold and hot that the planet has gone through over the past several hundred million years.

In that same token, the rate at which the temperatures fluctuate has been fairly constant up until this cycle. The only real change has been that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased much quicker than in previous cycles.

I can't say definitively that there is a causal relation, but there is at the very least a circumstantial or coincidental one.

As for that pretty chart Corvus posted from umich.edu, it is VERY misleading. Especially when you read the legend. It shows CO2 concentrations from the Antarctic ice sheet for historical numbers, then switches to the simple ice sheet for the past few hundred years. That in itself is flawed science. Using two different sources from different locations and determining a causal relation. But what really makes it misleading is the readings from Hawaii. CO2 concentrations are going to be much higher near an active volcano.

Overall, there is no denying that the global temperature is rising, however there is also no conclusive proof that it is caused by human interference. The only way to conclusively prove a relationship would be to bring atmosphereic CO2 levels down by 70%, and keep them there, and then measure global temperatures.

If the rate at which temperature increase has slowed (or even reversed) that, to me, would be solid evidence that human produced CO2 in the atmosphere does have an effect on global temperatures.

But now the realist in me kicks in, and realizes that there is no way that will EVER happen. At least not until humanity is wiped from the planet and the environment can get back to it's natural state.

TechieZero:

I skimmed. I:

a) am at work
b) have little interest in getting my science from politicians

Inhofe is a loony bin. In any sane society, he'd be on a street corner preaching.

Does this mean his science is wrong and not worthy of looking at? Well, yeah. I think it does.

He's got a history of literally making up shiat. Just complete fabrications. I'd be very surprised if this pamphlet were the one exception.