NASA says Climate Change exagerated?

[dj01540i6sp]

May be the Planets are spreading outward letting in more of the Sun's Gama Rays which makes a clearer path nothing to shade us to speak of. What about the Asteroids that is Heading towards US / Earth, They better figure out a way to Pull - Push - Drag, them out of our Orbital Path. I think is the most important thing that can / has to be figured out to do such thing. Some day it will save the Earth besides, Nature Destroying it by X ? X ? X ? Volcanoes going off simultaneously and blocking the Sun's Light / Heat for several months.

I know God is my savior! I'm not really concerned about Death.

We need to work on keeping Earth Life sustainable.

[herbivor]

http://www.wjla.com/blogs/weather/20...ng--11743.html

Damn, now coal is causing global cooling. Dem darn scientasts.

This herb guy is a gas. It's extremely entertaining to read his posts.

Scientists also observed immediate global temperature rising for the 2 days after 9/11/01. The reason; planes weren't flying. The particulate matter from the exhaust and condensation asks as a shade blocking some of the sun's radiation. Pollution is a double edge sword when it comes to global warming. The gases higher in the atmosphere trap heat while particulate matter from pollution help block it. Current models already account for this, although it's hard to predict how much a country will pollute in the future.

[Kershaw]

im impressed you actually try to reason with the circle jerk group on here.

but i'll tell you right now, it's not going to work.

[DTM190]

So what do you believe caused the Ice Age?

[z31maniac]

im impressed you actually try to reason with the circle jerk group on here.

but i'll tell you right now, it's not going to work.

Why don't you contribute as opposed to just calling everyone assholes all the time?

[herbivor]

im impressed you actually try to reason with the circle jerk group on here.

but i'll tell you right now, it's not going to work.

It's fun. Otherwise I wouldn't do it . I find when people can't provide a good counter argument they just stop posting. Just seeing how long I can drag this one out.

In response to the Ice age:
The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.

[dirtysix]

So, how long untill I can enjoy a nice 5c average temp rise and what can I do to speed it up?

[herbivor]

Haha. Wait a couple months to see a 5c rise in NZ. You guys are having pretty good snow down there in the South island? BTW, We should see many more unusual winter blizzards as the icecaps melt, putting more moisture in the atmosphere. These past couple winters have been pretty crazy for us.

[DTM190]

It's fun. Otherwise I wouldn't do it . I find when people can't provide a good counter argument they just stop posting. Just seeing how long I can drag this one out.

In response to the Ice age:
The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.

Why are you ignoring the fact that the earths climate has fluctuated significantly in 4 billion years. If you have such a good understanding of the ice age cycles and history, how can you ignore the fact that we have had periods much hotter and much cooler many times in the history of the earth?

The time frame on which most "global warming" studies are based are 50-300 years. We are talking about a 0.000000075% period of time in the earths history. Is so small and insignificant that it is a joke. Its like panicking because the temperature rose .0003% in the last 2 microseconds.

Look at the bigger picture is all I am saying.

[gwb72tii]

ok herb

show me anything that proves CO2 is causal in regards to GW

do you know how much annual CO2 is anthropogenic?

[87e30]

Yeah herb, I'd like to see you prove that man is causing all this warming.

Realistically, co2 from man is so small, and the temperature cycles so vast that the chances just seem too small. Combine that with the fact that the GW "proof" keeps changing after shown to be inaccurate and you get, drum roll... skeptics!

[Kershaw]

Yeah herb, repeat what you just said till you're blue in the face.

z31, why? because i've dragged threads out for pages and pages and its just like, "that's not good enough for me. i want more proof." and then, "that's still not good enough for me, but i dont actually have a rebuttal i just want more proof." and then finally, "nuh uh." and its fun.

[87e30]

Yeah herb, repeat what you just said till you're blue in the face.

z31, why? because i've dragged threads out for pages and pages and its just like, "that's not good enough for me. i want more proof." and then, "that's still not good enough for me, but i dont actually have a rebuttal i just want more proof." and then finally, "nuh uh." and its fun.

Herb isn't really arguing anything, just saying that scientists say that it's so. I'd like to see the proof that humans are correlated to temperature rising.

[herbivor]

Yeah herb, I'd like to see you prove that man is causing all this warming.

Realistically, co2 from man is so small, and the temperature cycles so vast that the chances just seem too small. Combine that with the fact that the GW "proof" keeps changing after shown to be inaccurate and you get, drum roll... skeptics!

Which definition of proof do you mean?
Proof: -noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in truth.
2. the demonstration of the truth of anything.
3. The state of having been tested and approved.
4. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.

I think you're looking for #4. Unfortunately no one provide that one. But all the other definitions of proof I'd say the scientific community are there if not pretty darn close. Similar to the "proof" that evolution exists. Some say it doesn't, not meeting definition #3 or #4, others say it does, meeting definition #1.


Here are some good arguments that speak to your specific question.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Then read this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

Any other questions you may have probably can be answered here

After you read all of those articles, feel free to visit http://www.sciencedaily.com/
It's not ideological in anyway that I can tell. Check out the news that comes in almost every other day on the latest climate change studies. Once in a blue moon you may get a rogue article that appears to contradict the common scientific studies, which is quickly picked up by journalists and conservative commentators. But the ones that come in day after day siting the same basic links to global warming don't make headlines anymore.

Pay attention to the science and not the propaganda and I think it would be hard to dispute anthropogenic global warming. Again, if you have sufficient evidence that contradicts the majority of peer reviewed science on climate change I would love to read it.

[gwb72tii]

ok, if its anthropogenic, lets do the math shall we
i've studied this about as much as herb

anthropogenic CO2 is about 4% annually of all CO2 emissions
there is no evidence CO2 causes GW. there is plenty of evidence rising CO2 is a result of GW.
CO2 is logrithmic in its limited greenhouse effect, that is, to double its effect you have to rise its level by a factor of 4
the GW camp, IPCC et al propose 20% reductions in anthropogenic CO2 which all parties agree will have serious negative economic affects

so, do the math and tell me where i'm missing something here

20% of 4% is an 8/10th's of one percent reduction in annual CO2
or, put another way, if we wreck the world economy, doom third world populations to poverty due to a lack of cheap energy, we still get 99.2% rise in annual CO2 of what it would be without wrecking the world economy

and remember its logrithmic

and there is no causal link

and i shouldn't be skeptical of government sponsored scientists on the free tax money subsidized gravy train

that about right?

how narrow minded of me to question the "consensus"