New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Ok. Should we?

 

it's far more conclusive then me thinking we can... the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community is that human activity is affecting the temperature of our planet contributing to a significant spike. A better question is why in the world have you've concluded that this spike is a natural occurrence as you're going against a vast majority of the experts?

this is where you go off the logic tracks in a big way. The overwhelming opinion of scientific community agrees that human activities are raising the earth's temperatures. What is natural about having 1.5 billion cows exuding endless clouds of methane and ammonia? Thats our choice. Humanity has existed up to this generation eating far less beef per individual (and meat in general) then we do today. The choice isn't man boobs or eat cow every day. My actions and answers say that I pay attention to reality and try to curb my contribution to this unnatural trend as an individual effort. I don't get preachy about this decision generally but if someone (like in this case maxiep) asks what he can do, I'll share what I'm doing.

we live in a free society and people have the right to eat whatever they choose. Individuals can continue to fill their fat asses and clog their arteries with cholesterol eating delicious burgers morning noon and night. But for health and green reasons I've personally decided to cut back on my beef consumption. I still eat it, but I actually eat more bison burgers then beef. Buffalo is leaner/healthier for consumption and are a positive presence for native grasses/soils where as cows tend to turn grasslands to dust bowls. Being more nimble, Buffalo don't trample stream banks down at nearly the rate that cows do. This last bit means more usable habitat for fish and amphibians which is directly reflected in the Biological research work I've done for the Ca. Department of Fish and Game.

STOMP

 

This has gone so far over your head, or you're purposely skirting the question because you can't answer it. Either way, it is like talking to a brick wall, and not interesting at all.

 

I find it amusing talking to someone trying to look down their nose while their head is up their ass

STOMP

 

This thread is about NASA and the history of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. Get back on track because you've gone off topic.

Stop the personal attack and look at Denny's articles. The consensus believes in climate change, even Denny does. Stop the vague banter, arguing, whatever, and get down to the advanced scientific metrics from our own NASA Terra satelite.

Some of the amateurs out there don't seem to understand computer models shouldn't be based on 50 or even 100 years of data. No one ever has an answer for Denny's thorough scientific analysis.

 

Yawn. Very boring.

I'm concerned about your estrogen levels... soy or no soy.

 

I directly addressed the study on page 2. Denny posted right after my post and ignored everything I had pointed out.

Then BB30 and Stomp go on belittling each other like a couple fighting on vacation. You could cut the sexual tension with a knife

 

Well at least you followed the thread, but an 1896 study on short term effects of climate change seems pretty statistically noisy (inaccurate due to sample size). We had a little ice age from 1600 to 1850, climate change occurs on a massive chronological scale.

 

So you disagree with the premise of the study referred to in the article Denny posted?

Regardless of the small sample size and his conclusions Svante Arrhenius was the first to demonstrate that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would increase infrared radiation absorbed

 

I don't know what you're referring to. Longwave radiation was measured and it didn't match up with radically crafted UN models.

Well read the thread, even Denny believes in climate change. Looks like you missed the point.

Yeah sorry, Nasa did a better study with their terra satellite.

 

OK, we're talking in circle now. Let me explain.

The very first sentence in the abstract says:

The authors the assume that ACC (AKA "anthropogenic climate change", AKA "Global Warming") is real and occurring.

You questioned the validity of the seminal paper on ACC (”On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”) which this research (and a whole discipline) is based on. (How dare you!?!?!)

You were quick to dismiss the paper and I was pointing out that it is an important milestone in the study of climate change

 

I'd say "projections" is the KEY word.

 

I believe the sun's impact on global climate change dwarfs anything man does.

 

Duh. This is precisely the reason why many are accusing global warming theorists and Al Gore as being alarmists. Don't worry though because I will definitely continue to bash the cheating Ducks.