Global warming

[av8torntn]

More science. Nothing to see here.. Business as usual..

http://news.yahoo.com/california-drought-space-nasa-photos-150921067.html

TOS

Not really science. But I hope you knew that.

 

[ImWaitingForTheDay]

this is why it does not snow in the summer http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/16/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/

 

[roadrunner2012]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=peer reviewed climate studies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=u7kDU9GRN-jQyAGpuoDYCg&ved=0CCMQgQMwAA

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

[island1fox]

I still say the tracking of weather and climate is just a blink in time.

With that being said --Watershed.org Reports on measuring rainfall levels in California for the past one hundred years.

How can you come to any conclusions when the data is all over the board.
1890 --43 inches
1924 ----10'5 inches
1941--38 inches
1977--11.5 inches
1983 --43 inches

etc etc --2009 2010 ---flooding --what would the "snapshot" in an instant of time.

Look at the population numbers in California last 100 years ----WATER ---a Global change --Rainfall problem ??----or an open border population growth problem ??

 

[oldngray]

If you try to move too many people into a naturally arid environment water shortages should be no surprise. Sure its warm and sunny, but its also just a step away from a desert.

 

[av8torntn]

Roadrunner what's your reply to my wager?

 

[oldngray]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=peer reviewed climate studies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=u7kDU9GRN-jQyAGpuoDYCg&ved=0CCMQgQMwAA

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

That study was criticized because it cherry picked only "peers" who would support their agenda and refused to include skeptics. And percentages are meaningless with such a small sample size anyway ( oops, I forgot you ignore the scientific method).

 

[roadrunner2012]

That study was criticized because it cherry picked only "peers" who would support their agenda and refused to include skeptics. And percentages are meaningless with such a small sample size anyway ( oops, I forgot you ignore the scientific method).

Which study? I posted links to hundreds.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=peer reviewed climate studies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=u7kDU9GRN-jQyAGpuoDYCg&ved=0CCMQgQMwAA

Roadrunner what's your reply to my wager?

Show me your link to the six papers and then Cheryl can ban me. If it's not what you say, you are banned, permanently.

 

[roadrunner2012]

BTW, If someone refers to The Guardian as a tabloid, they really need to re-evaluate their choice of news sources.

 

[av8torntn]

Which study? I posted links to hundreds.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=peer reviewed climate studies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=u7kDU9GRN-jQyAGpuoDYCg&ved=0CCMQgQMwAA


Show me your link to the six papers and then Cheryl can ban me. If it's not what you say, you are banned, permanently.

I say that I linked to peer reviewed papers on global warming/ climate change and you claim repeatedly that I didn't correct?

Are you planing to create some new definition like you seem to be wanting to do with tabloid?

 

[av8torntn]

It's really sad as I included the infamous stadium wave paper to give you an out on the lull in global warming but instead of reading it you tried to ignore the pause.

Some people you just can't help.

 

[roadrunner2012]

I say that I linked to peer reviewed papers on global warming/ climate change and you claim repeatedly that I didn't correct?

Are you planing to create some new definition like you seem to be wanting to do with tabloid?

I've yet to see a link to your post to the links you claim to have posted. I guess you are now banned?

Waiting to see that 'banned' banner across your avatar.

 

[av8torntn]

I've yet to see a link to your post to the links you claim to have posted. I guess you are now banned?

Waiting to see that 'banned' banner across your avatar.

Still waiting for you to agree to the terms. And waiting. You may wanna check page 17 first.

 

[MrFedEx]

It's really sad as I included the infamous stadium wave paper to give you an out on the lull in global warming but instead of reading it you tried to ignore the pause.

Some people you just can't help.

Like you. Global warming is quite real. Just ask the people in Switzerland trying to deal with the huge increase in melt water or the native peoples in northern Alaska and Canada that are seeing river banks cave-in as permafrost melts. There are also migratory changes taking place with many different animal species, clearly in response to environmental changes.

Flat Earthers like you are ignorant, plain and simple.

 

[av8torntn]

Like you. Global warming is quite real. Just ask the people in Switzerland trying to deal with the huge increase in melt water or the native peoples in northern Alaska and Canada that are seeing river banks cave-in as permafrost melts. There are also migratory changes taking place with many different animal species, clearly in response to environmental changes.

Flat Earthers like you are ignorant, plain and simple.

So your position is to heck with science lets go ask a fisherman?

Don't ever let anyone tell you that you are not unique.

 

[oldngray]

Like you. Global warming is quite real. Just ask the people in Switzerland trying to deal with the huge increase in melt water or the native peoples in northern Alaska and Canada that are seeing river banks cave-in as permafrost melts. There are also migratory changes taking place with many different animal species, clearly in response to environmental changes.

Flat Earthers like you are ignorant, plain and simple.

And where is the proof that climate change is caused by man? And any short term changes are weather and not climate which should be considered over geologic time spans.

 

[MrFedEx]

And where is the proof that climate change is caused by man? And any short term changes are weather and not climate which should be considered over geologic time spans.

Core-ice samples show clear evidence of much higher percentages of CO2 and other global warming pollutants since the beginning of the Industrial Age in the late 1800s. The pace at which warming has occurred (within the past 125 years) far exceeds the rates of the geologic time span argument. In terms of geologic time, 125 years is quite small, pointing directly to man-made vs. earth-cycle type changes.

 

[av8torntn]

Core-ice samples show clear evidence of much higher percentages of CO2 and other global warming pollutants since the beginning of the Industrial Age in the late 1800s. The pace at which warming has occurred (within the past 125 years) far exceeds the rates of the geologic time span argument. In terms of geologic time, 125 years is quite small, pointing directly to man-made vs. earth-cycle type changes.

Well, of course, this is a period after a mini ice age. It should be warmer but that doesn't explain why it hasn't gotten warmer in 15 years does it? I mean carbon is still around and besides if there were no more carbon we wouldn't even be here.

I'm beginning to think that you guys just hate trees.

 

[roadrunner2012]

Still waiting for you to agree to the terms. And waiting. You may wanna check page 17 first.

I agreed to the terms.

Those are denier blog posts, not peer reviewed papers.

Adios

 

[roadrunner2012]

And where is the proof that climate change is caused by man? And any short term changes are weather and not climate which should be considered over geologic time spans.

So you disagree with your buddy, av8torntn? He only refers to short term changes, and only one metric in one continent.

Ban av8torntn. A deal is a deal.