Just have to do something radical.......read the whole story and not just the coles notes version.
AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Just have to do something radical.......read the whole story and not just the coles notes version.
Looks like a graph with **** all to back it.This looks linear to you?
Is this the best you could find?
Abstract
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere and is of considerable concern in global climate change because of its greenhouse gas warming potential. The rate of increase has accelerated since measurements began at Mauna Loa Observatory in 1958 where carbon dioxide increased from less than 1 part per million per year (ppm yr−1) prior to 1970 to more than 2 ppm yr−1 in recent years. Here we show that the anthropogenic component (atmospheric value reduced by the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm) of atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasing exponentially with a doubling time of about 30 years since the beginning of the industrial revolution (
Where does it CONFIRM anything? All it gives is "concern", "potential" and "appears". Sounds like hard proveable science to ______?
The entire myth is based on one old guy who just for ****s and giggles took samples from one location? I like the part about the oil crisis in 1973 when the entire planet apparently parked their cars (which at that time off gassed CO without the 2 and we burned leaded gasoline) and all industry halted for the rest of the decade and there was zero population growth in all nations.
If CO2 double since the old guy started shouldn't it already be 4.64C warmer since 1958? Why the **** isn't it? Does that mean in 30 years we'll see an average 9C rise since 1958?
It looks like your infantile science drank Draino while you turned your head for 1 sec.
Watched any good kid's shows or Youtube lately? Maybe Youtube can explain where all the CO2 came from when there were far less vehicles, vehicles exhausted CO and not CO2 and aircraft didn't leave 2500sq km contrails that lasted for 20+hrs? Why was the early 70's a so damn chilly after the CO2 doubled?
Last edited:
Why would it mean atmospheric CO2 should have doubled by now? I calculated how long it takes to double at the current growth rate, but that actually a whole lot different than saying it should have doubled from 315 ppm by now. For one, the current growth rate is attributed to burning fossil fuels, but fossil fuels didn't put all the CO2 in the atmosphere. There was already some there. Do you know how exponents work? The No isn't a value of zero. Doubling of early exponentials are actually very small in magnitude, after a few doublings then the values get large. Don't you know anything about math?
Kind of hard to go along with "global warming" when your having the coldest winter (2nd year in a row) here in Florida, native species of animals are freezing to death ie: manatees, lizards etc.
Florida manatee deaths reach record high Marco Eagle
It is understandable why people doubt what is going on in the world because of what is going on in their immediate area. All this scientific jargon some are using just does not relate to the average person and unless it is explained so that a child could understand we will always have our skeptics.
Florida manatee deaths reach record high Marco Eagle
It is understandable why people doubt what is going on in the world because of what is going on in their immediate area. All this scientific jargon some are using just does not relate to the average person and unless it is explained so that a child could understand we will always have our skeptics.
Yeah I know how exponents works that's why 2PPM is linear while a 2% increase is exponential. That's why it's full of ****. Find something reality based with more than one localized sampling of both CO and CO2. Prior to the late 70's people heated their homes with heating oil (CO) had no catalytic converters (CO) on vehicles and powerplants.
We had a huge CO problem in the past CO2 was considered the answer by adding scrubbers, catalytic converters and co-jets to complete the combuston process.
Last edited:
]
They might be dieing from glacier cancer since global warming is a sure thing. Oops I mean "climate change".
Last edited:
Well either works really, but the key words are actually "global" and "climate". Global meaning, like, the whole world. And climate meaning, like, longer than winter. I guess biodiversitee just doesn't have the same zing to it, unfortunately.
You are confusing climate with weather Ironsides. It takes more than a day or a month or even a season to affect climate- probably more like a 5-10 year trend would be considered climate. A few days of freezing in Florida would probably affect the average annual temp. by less than 1/2 a degree. :smile:
No, it's because it's more accurate to describe a harmful excess in climate that can be either cold or warm.
In the short term of this scam did it get warmer or colder or it just depends where you reside?
He doesn't understand slope.
I think you're being a bit too dismissive here without looking at the full picture - which is actually counter-intuitive to a healthy skepticism. It's not that difficult to see that scientists are trying to find an optimal climate to continue to sustain us and our activities. I'm pretty sure that requires an optimal temperature that prevents the increasing display of natural disasters this last decade and acidification of the ocean.
To answer your question, obviously the climate has been getting warmer after industrialization took place. A healthy skepticism has always been infused in this science as they look at natural climate factors as well. Any good science would have to take into account all of these factors to ensure that an anthropogenic correlation is accurate. It's not a scam because the same scientists making these conclusions are trying to ensure the other causes - irradiation, solar cycles, nino/nina cycles, etc - are not more prevalent than anthropogenic (man-made) factors.
I mean, if you want to stir the pot, fine. But even skeptics are being channeled in this direction and this after monumental scrutiny of intergovernmental processes, organizations, observation techniques, data analysis and the like. AGW as a legitimate concept is only as strong as it is now because healthy skepticism was able to fortify the concept.
Last edited: