Global Warming or Global Bullshit?

Search

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Here's a list of NBA Championship contests since 2000...

2000Los Angeles Lakers[SUP]
Dagger-14-plain.png
[/SUP]
4–2Indiana Pacers[SUP][78][/SUP]
2001Los Angeles Lakers4–1Philadelphia 76ers[SUP][79][/SUP]
2002Los Angeles Lakers4–0New Jersey Nets[SUP][80][/SUP]
2003San Antonio Spurs[SUP]
Dagger-14-plain.png
[/SUP]
4–2New Jersey Nets[SUP][81][/SUP]
2004Los Angeles Lakers1–4Detroit Pistons[SUP][82][/SUP]
2005San Antonio Spurs4–3Detroit Pistons[SUP][83][/SUP]
2006Dallas Mavericks2–4Miami Heat[SUP][84][/SUP]
2007San Antonio Spurs4–0Cleveland Cavaliers[SUP][85][/SUP]
2008Los Angeles Lakers2–4Boston Celtics[SUP]
Dagger-14-plain.png
[/SUP]
[SUP][86][/SUP]
2009Los Angeles Lakers4–1Orlando Magic[SUP][87][/SUP]
2010Los Angeles Lakers4–3Boston Celtics[SUP][88][/SUP]
2011Dallas Mavericks4–2Miami Heat[SUP][89][/SUP]
2012[SUP][f][/SUP]Oklahoma City Thunder1–4Miami Heat[SUP][92][/SUP]
2013San Antonio Spurs3–4Miami Heat[SUP]
Dagger-14-plain.png
[/SUP]
[SUP][93][/SUP]
2014San Antonio Spurs[SUP]
Dagger-14-plain.png
[/SUP]
4–1Miami Heat[SUP][94][/SUP]
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Another difficult decision. NASA, the group responsible for some of the most advanced technologies in the history of mankind says one thing, and people like festeringBitch, Canadian Joe, Acebb, and conservative bloggers say something different. It's just one of the most difficult decisions I've had to make. Give some time to think about this one.


203_co2-graph-1280x800.jpg


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.[SUP]1
[/SUP]


Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.


The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.[SUP]2[/SUP] Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.


Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.[SUP]3[/SUP]

[h=3]The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:[/h]http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
You have got to love it.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Take about hedging your bet, not defiantly, not positively, not absolutely, not completely, not totally but very likely.

Imagine if 1,300 years ago these Global Warming “smart people” had said this. Today’s history books would be mocking them. And I suspect that 1,300 years from now, providing of course man doesn’t destroy himself by nuclear war or an asteroid the size of Obama’s ego doesn’t destroy the Earth, history books will be mocking those “smart people” once again.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
51,853
Tokens
You have got to love it.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Take about hedging your bet, not defiantly, not positively, not absolutely, not completely, not totally but very likely.

Imagine if 1,300 years ago these Global Warming “smart people” had said this. Today’s history books would be mocking them. And I suspect that 1,300 years from now, providing of course man doesn’t destroy himself by nuclear war or an asteroid the size of Obama’s ego doesn’t destroy the Earth, history books will be mocking those “smart people” once again.

Very likely isn't science, especially when these same 'experts' are dumbfounded by the so-called 18 year warming 'pause'

You can tell the Kenyan has stacked all the govt agencies with radicals. Now the DOD says "climate change" is America's biggest threat.

Really? face)(*^%
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Lol, Dave and Retard Joe questioning real scientists and engineers! Gotta love conservatives. They have no shame!
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Hmmmmm.... do I believe people from Princeton University and actual scientists... or people named "beefdiesel" and "festeringZit". Very tough decision.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON -- In the more than two decades since world leaders first got together to try to solve global warming, life on Earth has changed, not just the climate. It's gotten hotter, more polluted with heat-trapping gases, more crowded and just downright wilder.


The numbers are stark. Carbon dioxide emissions: up 60 per cent. Global temperature: up six-tenths of a degree. Population: up 1.7 billion people. Sea level: up 3 inches. U.S. extreme weather: up 30 per cent. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica: down 4.9 trillion tons of ice.


"Simply put, we are rapidly remaking the planet and beginning to suffer the consequences," says Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
[h=2]Photos[/h]


The ground is cracked at the edge of an irrigated corn field near England, Ark., in this file photo from Friday, July 6, 2012. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)



Diplomats from more than 190 nations opened talks Monday at a United Nations global warming conference in Lima, Peru, to pave the way for an international treaty they hope to forge next year.
To see how much the globe has changed since the first such international conference -- the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 -- The Associated Press scoured databases from around the world. The analysis, which looked at data since 1983, concentrated on 10-year intervals ending in 1992 and 2013. This is because scientists say single years can be misleading and longer trends are more telling.
Our changing world by the numbers:
WILD WEATHER
Since 1992, there have been more than 6,600 major climate, weather and water disasters worldwide, causing more than $1.6 trillion in damage and killing more than 600,000 people, according to the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Belgium, which tracks the world's catastrophes.
While climate-related, not all can be blamed on man-made warming or climate change. Still, extreme weather has noticeably increased over the years, says Debby Sapir, who runs the centre and its database. From 1983 to 1992 the world averaged 147 climate, water and weather disasters each year. Over the past 10 years, that number has jumped to an average 306 a year.
In the United States, an index of climate extremes -- hot and cold, wet and dry -- kept by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has jumped 30 per cent from 1992 to 2013, not counting hurricanes, based on 10-year averages.
NOAA also keeps track of U.S. weather disasters that cost more than $1 billion, when adjusted for inflation. Since 1992, there have been 136 such billion-dollar events.
Worldwide, the 10-year average for weather-related losses adjusted for inflation was $30 billion a year from 1983-92, according to insurance giant Swiss Re. From 2004 to 2013, the cost was more than three times that on average, or $131 billion a year.
Sapir and others say it would be wrong to pin all, or even most, of these increases on climate change alone. Population and poverty are major factors, too. But they note a trend of growing extremes and more disasters, and that fits with what scientists have long said about global warming.
It's this increase that's "far scarier" than the simple rise in temperatures, University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles says.


TEMPERATURE
It's almost a sure thing that 2014 will go down as the hottest year in 135 years of record keeping, meteorologists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center say. If so, this will be the sixth time since 1992 that the world set or tied a new annual record for the warmest year.
The globe has broken six monthly heat records in 2014 and 47 since 1992. The last monthly cold record set was in 1916.
So the average annual temperature for 2014 is on track to be about 58.2 degrees (14.6 degrees Celsius), compared with 57.4 degrees (14.1 degrees Celsius) in 1992. The past 10 years have averaged a shade below 58.1 degrees (nearly 14.5 degrees Celsius) -- six-tenths of a degree warmer than the average between 1983 and 1992.


THE OCEANS
The world's oceans have risen by about 3 inches since 1992 and gotten a tad more acidic -- by about half a per cent -- thanks to chemical reactions caused by the absorption of carbon dioxide, scientists at NOAA and the University of Colorado say.
Every year sea ice cover shrinks to a yearly minimum size in the Arctic in September -- a measurement that is considered a key climate change indicator. From 1983 to 1992, the lowest it got on average was 2.62 million square miles. Now the 10-year average is down to 1.83 million square miles, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
That loss -- an average 790,000 square miles since 1992 -- overshadows the slight gain in sea ice in Antarctica, which has seen an average gain of 110,000 square miles of sea ice over the past 22 years.


ON LAND
The world's population in 1992 was 5.46 billion. Today, it's nearly a third higher, at 7.18 billion. That means more carbon pollution and more people who could be vulnerable to global warming.
The effects of climate change can be seen in harsher fire seasons. Wildfires in the western United States burned an average of 2.7 million acres each year between 1983 and 1992; now that's up to 7.3 million acres from 1994 to 2013, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.
And some of the biggest climate change effects on land are near the poles, where people don't often see them. From 1992 to 2011, Greenland's ice sheet lost 3.35 trillion tons of ice, according to calculations made by scientists using measurements from NASA's GRACE satellite. Antarctica lost 1.56 trillion tons of ice over the same period.


THE AIR

Scientists simply point to greenhouse gas emissions, mostly carbon dioxide, that form a heat-trapping blanket in our air.
There's no need to average the yearly amount of carbon dioxide pollution: It has increased steadily, by 60 per cent, from 1992 to 2013. In 1992, the world spewed 24.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide; now it is 39.8 billion, according to the Global Carbon Project, an international consortium.
China has tripled its emissions from 3 billion tons to 11 billion tons a year. The emissions from the U.S. have gone up more slowly, about 6 per cent, from 5.4 billion tons to 5.8 billion tons. India also has tripled its emissions, from 860 million tons to 2.6 billion tons. Only European countries have seen their emissions go down, from 4.5 billion tons to 3.8 billion tons.


WHAT SCIENTISTS SAY
"Overall, what really strikes me is the missed opportunity," Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, said in an email.
"We knew by the early 1990s that global warming was coming, yet we have done essentially nothing to head off the risk. I think that future generations may be justifiably angry about this."
"The numbers don't lie," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State. "Greenhouse gases are rising steadily and the cause is fossil fuel burning and other human activities. The globe is warming, ice is melting and our climate is changing as a result."

 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
It takes just TEN YEARS for CO2 to damage the climate: Impact of global warming will be felt by current generation, claims study


  • Study combined data on carbon cycle with data on the climate system
  • The upper layers of the ocean take longer to heat than the atmosphere
  • This accounts for the ten year time lag, say Washington-based scientists
  • The results also suggest that warming can persist for more than a century
  • People alive today are likely to benefit from strategies to cut emissions
  • Carbon dioxide emissions are now up 60 per cent since leaders got together to try to solve global warming in 1992

Many scientists believe it takes several decades for the effects of global warming to be felt on Earth.
But in fact, it takes just 10 years for a single emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) to have its maximum warming effects on the planet.
This is according to Washington-based researchers who claim to have dispelled a common misconception that the damaging effects from a CO2 emission will only be felt by future generations.

23AC5D3900000578-2857863-image-5_1417546249303.jpg

+4



It takes just 10 years for a single emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) to have its maximum warming effects on the Earth, according to a new study by the Carnegie Institute for Science in Washington. Pictured is the average global surface temperatures in 2013. Red and dark orange show warmer-than-average temperatures




 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
The results suggest that warming can persist for more than a century and that the benefits from emission reductions will be felt by those who have worked to curb the emissions.
Some of these benefits would be the avoidance of extreme weather events, such as droughts, heatwaves and flooding, according to scientists at the Carnegie Institute for Science.


However, some of the bigger climate impacts from warming, such as sea-level rise, melting ice sheets and long-lasting damage to ecosystems, may not occur for hundreds or thousands of years later, they claim.
'Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of carbon dioxide, taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration,' said lead author of the study Dr Katharine Ricke.
23AC5D4100000578-2857863-image-4_1417546241967.jpg

+4



The study suggests that warming from CO2 emissions can persist for more than a century and that the benefits from emission reductions will be felt by those who have worked to curb the emissions



'A lot of climate scientists may have an intuition about how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of CO2, but that intuition might be a little bit out of sync with our best estimates from today's climate and carbon cycle models.'
To calculate this timeframe, researchers combined information about the Earth's carbon cycle with information about the Earth's climate system taken from a group of climate models used in the latest IPCC report.
The results showed that the average time between a single CO2 emission and maximum warming was 10.1 years, and reaffirmed that most of the warming persists for more than a century.
The reason for this time lag is because the upper layers of the oceans take longer to heat up than the atmosphere, the scientists say.
As the oceans take up more and more heat which causes the overall climate to warm up, the warming effects of CO2 emissions actually begin to diminish as CO2 is eventually removed from the atmosphere.



 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
23AC5D3D00000578-2857863-image-7_1417546273029.jpg

+4



Dr Matthew Watson, a climate scientists, said he was 'terrified' of the some geoengineering solutions

A climate scientist has said he is 'terrified' of the futuristic technologies he is helping to develop in a bid to slow global warming.
British academics have spent £5.4 million ($8.5 million) in the last five years on taxpayer-funded 'geoengineering' projects to stop the effects of climate change.
Dr Matthew Watson, lead investigator of a £1.8million ($2.8 million) project to pump chemicals into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays, said using such technologies will become inevitable if humanity fails to stop global warming.
The Bristol University academic has already suffered a major setback, when much-trumpeted plans to send a huge balloon into the air to test his scheme was scrapped over a patenting dispute.
Last week, he admitted that despite the millions already spent on research, scientists are still decades from seeing their dreams turn into reality.
And he said they could indeed be dangerous.
The schemes could see rainfall patterns change, droughts spread across the world and the ozone layer damaged beyond repair.
'Personally, this stuff terrifies me,' he said. 'Whilst it is clear that temperatures could be reduced during deployment, the potential for misstep is considerable.
'By identifying risks, we hope to contribute to the evidence base around geoengineering that will determine whether deployment, in the face of the threat of climate change, has the capacity to do more good than harm.'
But he added that it would be 'unethical' not to try the technology.


It takes around 10 years for these two competing factors to cancel each other out and for warming to be at a maximum.
'Our results show that people alive today are very likely to benefit from emissions avoided today and that these will not accrue solely to impact future generations,' Dr Ricke said.
'Our findings should dislodge previous misconceptions about this timeframe that have played a key part in the failure to reach policy consensus.'
In the two decades since world leaders first got together to try to solve global warming, the world has become more polluted with heat-trapping gases, more crowded and just downright wilder.


 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
According to a separate study by the Associated Press, carbon dioxide emissions are up 60 per cent, global temperature are up six-tenths of a degree and sea levels have increased by three inches.
'Simply put, we are rapidly remaking the planet and beginning to suffer the consequences,' says Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
Diplomats from more than 190 nations opened talks Monday at a United Nations global warming conference in Lima, Peru, to pave the way for an international treaty they hope to forge next year.
Overall, what really strikes me is the missed opportunity,' Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.
'We knew by the early 1990s that global warming was coming, yet we have done essentially nothing to head off the risk. I think that future generations may be justifiably angry about this.'
23AC5D3200000578-2857863-image-10_1417546325552.jpg

+4



Global carbon dioxide emission is up 60 per cent since leaders got together to try to solve global warming in 1992. Pictured are various country contributions to carbon dioxide emissions from 1960-2012




 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
28,332
Tokens
Global Warming/Climate Change is very real and is happening according to reputable scientist. Al Gore got rich on environmental alarmism though IMO. Liberals don't understand that science is not religion, while conservatives don't understand that religion is not science. The pseudo-science that the nut's use to say it's not real, is comparable to pseudo-science 9/11 truthers use that "prove" 9/11 was an inside job.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
35,366
Tokens
Global Warming/Climate Change is very real and is happening according to reputable scientist. Al Gore got rich on environmental alarmism though IMO. Liberals don't understand that science is not religion, while conservatives don't understand that religion is not science. The pseudo-science that the nut's use to say it's not real, is comparable to pseudo-science 9/11 truthers use that "prove" 9/11 was an inside job.

Wtf!! I didn't know Libertarians believed in Global Warming?? Does Rand Paul? Or is he gonna play to the retard conservatives?
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,985
Tokens
Yeah man, these "scientists" aren't influenced by government funding at all either... (sigh)

Audit: Taxpayer dollars paid for eco group’s $25G Christmas party, and much more

Published December 03, 2014FoxNews.com


Facebook1504 Twitter394 livefyre2733 Email Print

Now Playing Millions of tax dollars wasted in climate change study




$25,000 for a Christmas party.
$11,000 for premium coffee services.
Millions more for questionable construction costs.

All this was billed to taxpayers by an obscure federally funded science group, according to a scathing new inspector general report.
The audit, conducted by the National Science Foundation inspector general and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, detailed spending by the Colorado-based National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). The nonprofit, designed to operate a network of ecological observatories across the continent, is solely funded by the National Science Foundation.
The report found that spending at the group has gotten out of control.
"Given the present lack of controls, there is virtually no accountability over the contingency funds ... NSF does not have sufficient safeguards over the significant and unsupported contingency costs included in NEON's award budget," the report said.
The report, and the spending, was the subject of a House science committee hearing Wednesday morning.
Among the spending was a slew of items billed to the National Science Foundation between mid-September 2012 and mid-April 2013, under a so-called "management fee." They included the lavish Christmas party, the coffee services, $3,000 for alcohol-fueled Board of Directors dinners, $3,000 for T-shirts and more. It also included $112,000 for lobbying, according to the report. According to a whistle-blower document, the Christmas and holiday party costs included more than $12,000 for expenses at a Westin.
"Why did NSF allow this to happen?" Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday at the hearing. "The NSF needs to be held accountable for how they spend taxpayers' hard-earned dollars."
Though it wasn't in the IG report, Smith also alleged trips to a "high-end resort in France."
Asked for comment, an NSF spokeswoman said the agency has initiated a review of "management fee policies and controls."
"Consistent with government-wide regulations that govern audit resolution, NSF has policies and procedures for resolving and following up on and recommendations contained in audit reports issued by the Office of the Inspector General," the spokeswoman said, adding the agency will post its final decision online.
NEON Board Chairman James Collins also defended the organization. "NEON, Inc. has always spent all funding in strict compliance with our understanding both of the guidelines provided to the organization and the law," he said in a statement.
The audit stemmed from concerns dating back to 2012 over a NEON construction budget, where more than $150 million in costs were questioned.
This is not the first time the NSF has come under scrutiny for its spending.
In 2011, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., released a report on wasteful spending at the NSF, identifying more than $1.2 billion in losses from waste, fraud, duplication and mismanagement.
This included an $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness; $1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names; $2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the Internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends; and $581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,118,735
Messages
13,558,980
Members
100,679
Latest member
win77vncom
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com