Please stay on point and discuss the content of the article.

QuakerOats;1706354 wrote:Please stay on point and discuss the content of the article.

It was a scientific article written by a non scientific person. It's deserves no discussion. Thanks.

He compares figures that have no meaning compared with each other. It's not like apples and oranges, it's apples and rectal thermometers. They have no relationship. IOW, it's nonsense.

queencitybuckeye;1706361 wrote:He compares figures that have no meaning compared with each other. It's not like apples and oranges, it's apples and rectal thermometers. They have no relationship. IOW, it's nonsense.

He has as much authority on the subject as Pete Rose has on Nuclear Physics.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/nyas.12586/

Most recent PEER Reviewed Scientific study.

Here's another published in a scientific journal on the rising sea levels caused by climate change.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093.epdf?referrer_access_token=hLGjDz3v0OM2CoAKFNSzVtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OiDnkEGiwklZvRXtMtZcWSkCbFz51YcSJg-d-3zQp_N67V0wWNAhqBg-tYr5ox_33gtWnZsJcWNGkpeXarWJEy

Stop being a bunch of dumbasses.

Would you say he has as much authority on the subject as perhaps, Al Gore?

hilliardfan;1706366 wrote:Would you say he has as much authority on the subject as perhaps, Al Gore?

Al Gore did invent the internet. The reality is liberals will believe who supports their agenda and demonize anyone who doesn't.

I am all for global warming these temps suck. Burn some coal, run more cars and trucks...do what you need to do to warm it up...

rrfan;1706369 wrote:I am all for global warming these temps suck. Burn some coal, run more cars and trucks...do what you need to do to warm it up...

Except global warming makes temperature more extreme; hotter summers, colder winters. I mean its certainly a problem but I don't think cutting down C02 emissions is going to make a significant enough dent to squish it. In general, I think this is about creating a problem, starting an institution to solve the problem, and extracting money from those they can convince it is a problem. It's like solving racism, street harrassment, and equal pay; awareness and such is a waste of time.

The conceit that human production of carbon dioxide is capable of driving the earth’s climate is running smack into the sun. CO2 accounts for a mere 0.039% of the atmosphere, while the sun accounts for 99.86% of all of the mass in our entire solar system.


True or false?


There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.


True or false?


It is common sense to believe that the sun has more influence on global temperatures than a trace gas. With a 17 year “pause” in the predicted outcomes of an increase in atmospheric CO2, warmists face more and more awkward questions.


True or false?


If temperatures actually decline as a result of an expected decrease in solar activity, at some point the game will be up, and the billions of dollars a year squandered on climate modeling that doesn’t predict what happens will have to dry up.

True or false?

The conceit that human production of carbon dioxide is capable of driving the earth’s climate is running smack into the sun. CO2 accounts for a mere 0.039% of the atmosphere, while the sun accounts for 99.86% of all of the mass in our entire solar system.

True or false?


There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.

True or false?


It is common sense to believe that the sun has more influence on global temperatures than a trace gas. With a 17 year “pause” in the predicted outcomes of an increase in atmospheric CO2, warmists face more and more awkward questions.


True or false?


If temperatures actually decline as a result of an expected decrease in solar activity, at some point the game will be up, and the billions of dollars a year squandered on climate modeling that doesn’t predict what happens will have to dry up.

True or false?

QuakerOats;1706372 wrote:The conceit that human production of carbon dioxide is capable of driving the earth’s climate is running smack into the sun. CO2 accounts for a mere 0.039% of the atmosphere, while the sun accounts for 99.86% of all of the mass in our entire solar system.

True or false?

Meaningless. Comparing a small number with an unrelated large number doesn't prove anything, other than you're an idiot.

queencitybuckeye;1706373 wrote:Meaningless. Comparing a small number with an unrelated large number doesn't prove anything, other than you're an idiot.

Yeah talk about unrelated.

queencitybuckeye;1706373 wrote:Meaningless. Comparing a small number with an unrelated large number doesn't prove anything, other than you're an idiot.

If it is meaningless then I assume someone can scientifically describe how so.

What is idiotic is the notion that human activity in the last 100 years is altering global climate. Actually that is lunacy, not idiocy, given the millions of years of science history that says otherwise.

QuakerOats;1706377 wrote:If it is meaningless then I assume someone can scientifically describe how so.

What is idiotic is the notion that human activity in the last 100 years is altering global climate. Actually that is lunacy, not idiocy, given the millions of years of science history that says otherwise.

I would say its rather ignorant to say humans have no impact on the global climate but I agree its probably not significant enough to enact policy to stop it.

It's meaningless because its taking the mass of the sun and comparing it to the mass of C02 on Earth's atmosphere. I can't think of any reason why these are related in anyway but the article uses this to make a scientific claim. It's an apples to bears comparion; it's completely stupid.

I have sugar do whatever it takes to increase global wArming.... Including burning ISIS

sleeper;1706380 wrote:I would say its rather ignorant to say humans have no impact on the global climate but I agree its probably not significant enough to enact policy to stop it.

Even if we could, it wouldn't mean doing so would take things back to some previous equilibrium. Assuming "we" caused the problem doesn't mean "we" can fix it.

It's meaningless because its taking the mass of the sun and comparing it to the mass of C02 on Earth's atmosphere. I can't think of any reason why these are related in anyway but the article uses this to make a scientific claim. It's an apples to bears comparion; it's completely stupid.

I don't get why people think throwing shit like this in the pot along with any real science (and there is real science on both sides of the issue) helps one's cause. It does just the opposite.

China continues to build cheap coal burning power plants like new McDonalds. If every American started driving electric cars tomorrow it wouldn't begin to mitigate the CO & NOx impact coming from the Yellow Scourge. Nothing too dire is gonna happen over the next 30 yrs I'll most likely be around...so I DGAF.

Well, if you take away the fact they don't actually know how much CO2 has contributed to the warming, nor how much of the CO2 rise man is responsible for...that leaves you with they really don't know dick about man's impact on global warming. But they'll sure as hell bukkake you with anecdotal evidence against a small sample size to try to convince you otherwise (and they've gone the anecdotal route because they can't find the statistically significant evidence - i.e. ACTUAL science - of man's impact).

record lows being set daily in Cleveland..so much for global warming....er I mean climate change.

QuakerOats;1706372 wrote:The conceit that human production of carbon dioxide is capable of driving the earth’s climate is running smack into the sun. CO2 accounts for a mere 0.039% of the atmosphere, while the sun accounts for 99.86% of all of the mass in our entire solar system.

Hahaha my box of cheerios is also currently 35% full but my jug of milk is new and 80% full

sleeper;1706380 wrote:I would say its rather ignorant to say humans have no impact on the global climate but I agree its probably not significant enough to enact policy to stop it.

This. So this.

fish82;1706522 wrote:This. So this.

And, to me, what politicians DO largely supports that view. What those politicians SAY has to do with votes and fundraising. There is no doomsday scenario - it's a trivial and largely bullshit issue BUT an emotional one...perfect for dividing and herding voters into groups.

Pretty much a slam-dunk for either side to favor or oppose taxes and regulation. A pol has to be almost braindead to fumble on this, which is why NEITHER side is going to let it die as an issue any time soon.

Classyposter58;1706516 wrote:Hahaha my box of cheerios is also currently 35% full but my jug of milk is new and 80% full

Please reconcile your comment with the fact that climate has continuously changed in much more significant fashion for millions of years and, quite obviously, prior to the industrial age.

Pick6;1706442 wrote:record lows being set daily in Cleveland..so much for global warming....er I mean climate change.

Technically, if it's RECORD lows, wouldn't that mean there is climate change?

Heretic;1706586 wrote:Technically, if it's RECORD lows, wouldn't that mean there is climate change?

No. The "record" is often a relatively short history, and even then extremes will happen as part of a normal distribution. "Records" are meaningless with respect to science here, what you look at is the frequency and distribution of temperatures to see if the mean or standard deviation has changed (which is a result that can be manipulated based on the time periods chosen for comparison).