FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN A GOD IT BLOWS MY MIND THAT YOU CAN BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING. THERE IS MORE "PROOF" OF GOD THAN GLOBAL WARMING IN YOUR OWN IDEA OF PROOF. IF THINGS ARE REITERATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT MAKES THEM MORE TRUE? THAT IS THE SCIENCE i AM SEEING BEHIND YOUR PROOF.
caps lock off
recorded history? you make it sound as if this is a long period, humans started recording weather only after the year with no summer (pre industrial rev in the USA 1816) this was caused by one major volcano the year before (two others contribute trace amounts of dust expelled into the atmosphere).
so coming out of a mini ice age we experience a summer where temps in PA fluctuated (sometimes in just a few hours) from as high as 95 degrees F to as low as freezing.
the most important thing here is that you can't understand how what someone taught you through funding and resited studies (yes many studies involved in global warming just restate other studies data without any new info) can be look apon as complete bullshit.
you have not proven global warming just as much as I have not disproven it. You believe in it I don't. you brought up a good word: truth
truth is something you believe in (like god) a fact is something you can proove. global warming is like a god, sure some people can believe in it, throw money at it, scare/persuade other people into believing it but it cannot be proven.
The warming is within the range of natural variation.
The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age.
The warming is primarily a result of variances in solar radiation, possibly via modulation of cloud cover. It is similar in concept to the operating principles of the Wilson cloud chamber, but on a global scale where Earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber and the cosmic rays catalyze the production of cloud condensation nuclei. Henrik Svensmark says that fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere are causing a natural period of low cloud cover
So I see you are reduced to hiding behind semantics. You are correct “truth” was an inappropriate word choice. And also even when I reread most post I knew I was going to hear some hell for “recorded history”, because this phrase has an alternate meaning in paleoclimatology. It is used to reference times in which hard data has been collected. So in paleoclimatology “recorded history” goes back tens of thousands of years (thanks to ice cores). It is Ice cores that play a huge role in the global warming debate, by tracking both chemical composition as well as other impurities in the ice (such as pollen, and minerals), we can derive a pretty accurate curve of global temp. Because due to cause and effect we know warmer atmospheres lead to reliable, measurable conditions within the atmosphere (yes some data needs to be inferred, but that comes with any scientific investigation (you just have to state and defend your inferences)).
And as for the regurgitated data, I don’t think you quite understand me when I tell you I have studied under the leaders in this field. Todd Sowers, Barry Vought (Jon Vought’s brother) and in particular Richard Alley (Possibly the most respected climatologist in the world) are the individuals who actually go to the Greenland and the Antarctic to collect and analyze ice cores. This feat actually makes them rarer than astronauts. These are the people being reiterated by other researchers.
And I guess I am getting off track from your statements, because it appears that I am only proving that the world is getting warmer, and not connecting it to human-activities. But what I keep trying to reiterate is the rate of CO2 increase and the correlation of earth system effects. I know not a single model has been produced that is 100% accurate, however the amount of retreating global ice (and its continually increasing rate of disappearance). Fluctuating localized temperatures, the shifting pH of the oceans, and of course increases in mean global temperatures. Are all indications of the earth system being flooded by CO2.
Focus on the rates, that’s what is worrying note the rate leading to the last warming period and now look at todays increase
Please note there are a lot of things that I did not place on this list that a lot of news anchors do. Because we don’t understand enough about:
Increasing strength of el nino/la nina cycles. Increased magnitude and frequency of hurricanes Slowing speed of certain ocean currents
(Not everything is CO2 fault)
But the fact remains since the beginning of industrialization we have seen a sharp spike in atmospheric CO2. And with this spike in CO2 we have seen a lot of results that can be expected. This is not a self-fulfilling prophesy. And for those of you who doubt humans can actually influence the environment all that much, I am at a loose of words. Man has shown again and again its ability to triumph over nature, and history has also shown repeatedly that man has started many events before fully understanding all of that action’s results. You honestly don’t think that burning through fossil fuels that took millennia to deposit (pulling from one place in earths carbon cycle, and place into either strata (coal) or liquid deposits (oil)), and burning them in only a few decades won’t have a negative effect on our environment. (I am not saying we burned through all carbon resources in decades) What I am saying what we burn through in a day what took centuries to deposit. The earth is a machine with carbon, lots of places to store it, and lots of places to make it available. Be it in strata, the atmosphere, or held up in biological life carbon is always changing phases. But it is a regular slow moving machine and in the last century, we have opened the flood gates on atmospheric carbon. There is a thing called reciprocity, you should look it up.
Plus again you keep failing to answer my question. What is the advantage of lying about the industrializations effect on the environment? Who prospers by telling people to consume less? (because a lot of people prosper by saying continue to consume more) and don’t bring up that weak argument about grant money (it is insulting to people that I know quite well. To say they would fake results for grant money. That stuff does happen but checks and balances normally bring these rare occurances to light rather quickly). Honestly to who gets rich when man becomes more efficient in resource consumption?
Cheers to Dr. Cank, he writes his own posts instead of just copying Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck talking points.
The last advesary that put forth a synthesis of ideas or a new idea was 2 weeks ago which you refuted by pointing out the 400K co2 levels hadn't exceeded the current threashold/level.
This is degicank friends, please use creativity in your arguments if you want to be taken seriously. If you see a patern in previous research (peer-reviewed) please link it up or repost here, but please don't post other people's ideas as if you are making a new point...just post a link if you want us to see something.
However, Dr. Cank, were't you the same guy telling us in the 1960's that global cooling was inevitable? And, I read the real hurricaine data(heady), it is inconclusive... I didn't see the Dr. Bring it up though i think, any comments?
Global Warming is a hoax, when we're fifty you guys are going to have to bite the bullet and admit I was on the correct side of this argument. And all your kids will chuckle when I wax poetics of how global warming was similiar to the war of the worlds broadcast.
there are literarly thousands and thousands of articles (mostly by europeans whom dr cank claims are the most concerned about global warming) of both scholarly and press related sources that disect and disprove every aspect of this enviro terrorism known as global warming.
I respect your freedom to believe in what you want but don't blow off facts just because I bring them to light. Hitler was a horrible person but he had great ideas.
Here are just a few articles about The europeans furthering efforts to minimize their environmental footprint. I hate posting links to articles because I really don't think anyone reads them from this forum. I prefer to read the articles and sum up their findings (w/ Citations) Oh, and sorry I could only find articles from accredited news organizations. yeah know organizations that are veiwed by tens-to-hundreds of millions of people around the world, assuring that they are held to public scrutiny. Not saying that "Capitalsim Magazine" (www.capmag.com) and "americasfuture.net" don't carry the same amount of ethos.
Although I did find an article on the Denver Post (one of your sources) that references the meeting in Paris earlier this month, that inspired my mentioned of a proactive europe:
Report: Global warming man-made, unstoppable A U.N. group of scientists says temperatures and seas will rise for centuries no matter how much humans control pollution.
I have watched this on youtube and have picked apart the major "inconsistencies" via the power point demonstration available for download at www.internetskeptic.com. I challenge anyone to prove this (very weird but correct) individual incorrect. I especially like the doctoring of info sections to fit the models "consensual science" wants to scare us with. Some of his analogies are a bit misleading but all his claims backed up with raw data. Do yourself this one favor and either watch the video or go through the power point presentation.
the advantage of exagarrating is one you can't except Dr.; Funding for programs both in the private sector and in the R+D at Universities.
If (Human impact on)Global Warming is fact how come no one has won a Nobel Prize in this supposed field?
If (Human Impact on) Global Warming is fact why are your friends wasting valuable resources trying to prove it instead of countering it?
Your Ice core samples are Proxy measurements which have been combined with direct measurement data gathered from tropical locations high atop vocanoes thus giving you and your scientists the charts and graphs they desire to scare the world.
France has declared that Global Warming is a Hoax, the global warming that science is lieing about anyway.
The single most prevalent greenhouse gas compound in the atmosphere is h2o (water vapor). co2 concentration is around 1.8% water is damn near 96%.
The co2 expelled by the ocean everyday is more than all of the co2 man has expelled into the atmosphere during the 20th century. The scary thing of that is probably the warming of the oceans which would cause the co2 to leave the solution faster than if the oceans were cooling. The co2 expelled by an average volcano eruption is greater than that produced by man kind.