Global Warming

[Chard]

You're not kidding about us being in a freeze. This morning the thermometer outside my door read -15c.

[IQS.RLOW]

Oh look, Australia has a hot summer=frybabies cream their pants at evidence of global warming

[IQS.RLOW]

blah blah blah

It's pretty goddamn obvious you didn't read any of that, IQ. If you had you'd notice that your first source agrees with me and your second source is getting his information from a single graph depicting occurrence of landfall storms only, not total number and he doesn't account for damage either (Never mind of course that Dr. Pielke agree with me on this and on anthropogenic global warming). For fuck's sake, the very fact that you're trying to deny global warming or that global warming is causing a measurable change in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather by posting a link to Pielke's site tells me you're not reading anything when you post this shit.

Maybe you should consider getting an education before attempting to debate science with someone who has a formal science education? You might want to ponder that, IQ. Just saying.

It's pretty obvious you have a reading issue, so I would guess your "formal science education" didn't stretch beyond mixing finger paints in preschool...

However, my analysis of a long-term data set of hurricane losses in the United States shows no upward trend once the data are normalized to remove the effects of societal changes.

Try again, Choad...see if you can reference something other than Wikipedia and finger painting...

[Chard]

However, my analysis of a long-term data set of hurricane losses in the United States shows no upward trend once the data are normalized to remove the effects of societal changes.

Try again, Choad...see if you can reference something other than Wikipedia and finger painting...

You still aren't reading, you fucking idiot. If you subscribe to his "societal change" model then nothing seems to be happening.

1. His societal change model is still hotly debated.

2. His model doesn't account for why there are more storms per season or why those storms are of greater average intensity. It only accounts for why it is we're not seeing a huge increase in deaths and property damage to go with that increase, you gibbering fucktard. Learn to goddamn read your sources before you post them and get a goddamn education, you illiterate fucking plebe.

[IQS.RLOW]

Speaking of gibbering, your face must be redder than your baboon mothers arse.

You still haven't referenced anything, provided no data and you are denying Pielkes data set.

Stick to wiki so you don't embarrass yourself further- I have no desire to repost paragraph after paragraph from the paper that you are having trouble reading to prove you wrong again and again and again while you flip, flop and slither around the facts that hurricanes aren't getting more frequent or violent.

Suck it up, sweet cheeks.

[Neferti]

You're not kidding about us being in a freeze. This morning the thermometer outside my door read -15c.

Temperatures of -15C (with wind chill) in Winter is pretty normal here. As are temperatures of +40C in Summer. You are just fortunate that you don't live in Chicago.

[Phil E. Buster]

Only Mr Abbott can stop the temperatures of -15C (with wind chill) which always happens in Australia, but he has had other matters to deal with to govern for all of us. He is going to stop the boats by buying the boats and they will be stopped and they are stopping and he will give them boats now.

He is a tall glass of water.

[IQS.RLOW]

Only Mr Abbott can stop the temperatures of -15C (with wind chill) which always happens in Australia, but he has had other matters to deal with to govern for all of us. He is going to stop the boats by buying the boats and they will be stopped and they are stopping and he will give them boats now.

He is a tall glass of water.

Yes, only the GALP wants people to die freezing to death because of Anthropogenic global freezing. The want to remove the nice warm comforting blanket of carbon dioxide that feeds our plants and keeps us warm. This way they can charge us more for fuel for keeping warm and add a tax to it while outsourcing our jobs.

They are a tall glass of sewerage.

[Rorschach]

Gee SN what are you saying a frozen US proves the world is warming?
I addressed your previous stuff BTW, did you miss it?
AiA.... crazy people are climate change alarmists.

[Super Nova]

RS, I may have missed your stuff. Just glancing in here in between trying to get some work done.

More and more.

Since it has been conclusively proven to be a manmade cause and there is no natural cycle to correct it, it is up to mankind to take action to redress this imbalance in the interest of ourselves and all life on our planet.

Unless we become a world governed by a dictatorship, how can we control our behaviour to address. The west us taxation to drive behaviours normally however ineffective it is.

IQ, what other options do we have to get the right behaviours in humanity to reduce significantly the root caue of our warming other than taxation?

Global Warming, new study proves it is not a natural phase
Amazingly enough, to spite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there are still a few on the fringe who try to argue that global warming is just part of a normal, natural cycle. Now, new data proves that this can not be the case.

A new study from University of Colorado Boulder reveals that Arctic temperatures have been higher in this last century than any other century in more than 44,000 years and with this new information, it may be higher than the planet has seen in the past 120,000 years. The study was conducted using samples from the Baffin islands which lies east of Greenland. The majority of the island's 196,000 square miles are in the arctic circle, providing the best options for testing natural warming and cooling trends which gives us an understanding of just how unprecedented our current temperatures are. What is the significance of this? During the Holocene period, which began as the last ice age ended, the Earth experienced a warming trend. At this time, the Northern Hemisphere received much stronger amounts of energy from the sun during the summer months than what we do now, 9 times as much in fact. Yet, even with this enormous amount of the sun's energy beating down on the planet, the Earth still did not exhibit rising temperatures as high as what we have seen in just the last 100 years following the rise of the industrial revolution.

What this means in layman's terms is simply that the rising temperatures can not be attributed to a normal, natural cycle. If the Earth receiving 9 times the amount of the sun's energy did not result in temperatures of this scale; how then could it now be a natural occurrence with much less of the sun's energy? If we did not factor in man's use of fossil fuels and the resulting pollution and greenhouse effect there would be no other possible, natural cause for the warming. In other words, Global Warming is directly caused by fossil fuels and human pollution.

While this is troubling news, because it means that, since it is not a natural cycle, there is no built in mechanism to counter the trend. It is also good news because it conclusively tells us that we do, in fact, know the cause of global warming, which means that we still have a very small window of opportunity to stop the pollution that is causing it and to try to work towards repairing some of the damage before we hit the tipping point of no return.

http://www.examiner.com/article/global- ... ural-phase