Global Warming forces FL Spring Breakers to wear clothing

Of course I've answered your question: The problem I'm trying to solve is to prevent the excessive release of CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years.

 

That is precisely what lefties have been trying to pull for MANY years now stop it

 

Especially during the summer months by warmist alarmists.

 

no, you have on dancing shoes.

What problem are you trying to solve? Is it the implosion of the planet? You should be able to clearly spell out the top line problem in one sentence.

for example

We AGWers believe that man being on the planet will cause it to (*)(*)(*)(*) orbit

or

We AGWers believe that if we do not stop using automation that man will become extinct in 1 million years

is it really hard to identify the big problem that you are trying to solve?

 

The ACTUAL "problem" that the UN's IPCC is trying to "solve" is how to effect INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, from the West (see: United States) to Third World dictatorships, minus, of course, the UN's "administrative fee".

- - - Updated - - -

The ACTUAL "problem" that the UN's IPCC is trying to "solve" is how to effect INCOME REDISTRIBUTION, from the West (see: United States) to Third World dictatorships, minus, of course, the UN's "administrative fee".

 

If you wish your posts to remain, discuss the topic, respectfully, and quit the back and forth flaming.
If you can't, you will have to leave the thread.

Shangrila
Site Moderator

 

why was the word s h i f t orbit hashed over by the site?

 

The two big problems caused by global warming are changing weather patterns and melting ice at both poles (causing gradual rise in sea levels). These have huge implications for future resources, disasters and politics.

For example, if you get a confluence of poor harvests due to changed weather patterns (droughts, floods, overly hot or cold spells) we will see a real drop in food production, which will drive food prices up sharply. This will hurt everybody on the planet, but particularily where it occurs in the third world where they can't afford to pay much higher prices. There, these sorts of events causes waves of refugees, political instability and wars.

Missing ice is also opening up the possible exploitation of Arctic oil and gas in an area where national boundaries are still disputed. Rising sea levels threaten to raise the costs of coastal preservation and/or reclamation, and seriously threaten nations like Bangladesh who already are suffering such problems.

Finally, the increased risk of extreme weather events (higher number monsoons and hurricanes, for instance) translates into higher amounts of property damage (the loss of life is also higher but comparatively inconsequential). It's hard to put a value on all these damaging changes that have come and which are predicted to accelerate in the near future, but the net cost to the economies of the world will be staggering.

From just a cold-hearted economic point of view (leaving out pain and suffering and deaths), Global Warming is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with.

 

Looks like I'm done with you. I had the feeling when I first responded to your post that you did not want an answer; you just wanted a response that fit into your fantasy view of what "we" all think. Think about my answer and you'll understand the problem confronting us. Ignore my answer and you'll just never get it.

 

You can see here the sudden stratospheric warming pushing the jet stream south in what is known as an arctic break out.



The problem with equating this snow with global warming is that another well known side effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is stratospheric cooling as CO2 increases the stratosphere's ability to radiate heat into space.

So arguing that an event caused by a sudden stratospheric warming is the result of AGW is a non sequitur designed to confuse those who don't know any better. Sure it sounds good if you have no understanding of meteorology but from a meteorological standpoint it has no validity.

 

nope

you cannot provide an answer to what problem you are trying to fix.

you say CO2. My reply would be how is that a problem? it won't destroy the earth. Please try and give a succinct answer so we can all be amazed at it.

 

Climate change has been linked to mass extinctions- which would pose a serious problem.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018204006285

 

Really? Please cite the "mass extictions" caused by AGW. Not ALLUDED TO, but ACTUALLY PROVEN to be. NOTHING in your article links ANYTHING to ANYTHING, as it is COMPLETE SPECULATION, along the lines of Peter Pan.

Ever going to grasp the concept of PROOF/FACTUAL DATA vs SPECULATION and MADEUP NONSENSE, like your laughably idiotic link?

h hey!! Here's some "science" (your style) for ya: The failure of the Chicago Cubs to win the World Series in over a century "has been linked" to a goat, and there is EXACTLY the same amount of "PROOF" as your article provides !!

Wow!! Amazing,huh?

 

That article contains empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis that CC driven by increased atmospheric CO2 percipitated a mass extinction event. ACC is a hypothesis. A facet of that hypothesis is that increases in atmospheric CO2 may percipitate an extinction event. The article i linked contains evidence which corroborates the hypothesis that CC resulting from greenhouse gas pertubations can effect a mass extinction as it has in the past. The link i posted contains evidence/data produced through the application of the scientific method. It is not mere speculation, only a person who is obscenely ignorant of the scientific method would think that it is.

 

Uh...EXCUSE ME????!!!! Obviously, you are as CLUELESS about what EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE means as you are with ALL OTHER THINGS regarding actual scientific proof.

"EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE" means DIRECTLY OBSERVED.

It doesn not mean MADEUP SPECULATION.

PLease cite the "Empirical evidence" of the Tirassic era that the author OBSERVED FIRSTHAND.

Man...he must be the OLDEST Warmist on Earth, huh?


Duh....

 

Empirical evidence:

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

This study I linked was based on a numerical coupled ocean–atmosphere climate model of the Late Triassic to determine environmental stresses associated with a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2. A series of sensitivity experiments, with CO2 levels that bracket estimated end-Triassic pCO2 estimates (2–8× pre-industrial levels), predict extreme environmental conditions.

I would suggest that you take your foot out of your mouth and actually read the study. Apparently you are not familiar with Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. It is an international medium for the publication of high quality and multidisciplinary, original studies and comprehensive reviews in the field of palaeo-environmental geology. The journal aims at bringing together data with global implications from research in the many different disciplines involved in palaeo-environmental investigations.

I'm quite confident in my understanding of the scientific method Grokster. I make my living publishing papers on the research I have done. Whatever scientific education you think you may have gotten at Roadmaster Truck Driving school it clearly has not served you well.

 

Once the level of the ocean rises and parts of low lying areas start to disapear under water, then maybe, just maybe the nay-sayers will get the message.

 

You have to realize that global warming makes things cold. If you cons knew science, you'd know that! Just because something is called "warming" doesn't mean it has to be warm. It can be whatever it wants to be. You're being intolerant of climate dysphoria. STOP THE HATE, YOU HATERS!

 

OK, so cyclical climate changes have caused extinctions; so what? Again, what problem are you trying to solve with things like cap and trade etc? You aren't going to halt cyclical climate cycles. Please oh please tell me what the problem is that you're hoping to solve.

 

Gee...when was he around to ACTUALLY WITNESS the Triassic era,and the climate then?

Duh.....
What a twitpost. Empirical data is FACTUAL DATA,as OBSERVED in NATURE,etc.

The meaning of empirical evidence

Created on: January 01, 2008

What Is Empirical Evidence?

Empiricism is the basic practice of science. Science can be described as empirical because it relies on direct experience or observation in order to describe or explain phenomena. In other words, a scientific or empirical approach is inductive, and bases its explanations upon that which can be directly observed in a replicable or repeatable manner.


http://www.helium.com/items/769638-the-meaning-of-empirical-evidence

A "computer model", is in no way, a form of EMPIRICAL anything. It CANNOT BE, as its a collection of ARTIFICIALLY derived parameters.

definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation. This type of evidence is necessary for a theory to be confirmed.

As I said, you are completely bereft of any actual scientific terms and knowledge,and can only regurgitate what you have been spoonfed at Pseudo-Science Warmist Nonsense Websites.

You make your living living at your mom's house, and trying to pretend you aren't a late-middle school, or early high school student, at which you fail miserably, BTW.

Your silly article is nothing but speculation ,bsed on assumption, with ZERO EMPIRICAL DATA, having nothing but ARBITRARY COMPUTER MODEL data.

 

ah shift.

 

......Venus.......

 

Ok tell me mister grokster... Have you ever seen what gravity looks like Have you ever seen an electron? Have you ever seen a magnetic field with your own eyes?

Grokster, please tell us all what gravity looks like we are all dying to know

Seriously dude... Your reasoning is imbecilic. Observations can be made in a myriad of ways. Are you really so deft as to believe that the only way to assess the climate of the triassic period is to have been there?

 

so man is the reason that Venus cannot sustain life?

 

How asinine. The effects of gravity are quite apparent...and EMPIRICALLY MEASURABLE.

"SCIENTIFIC-Observations" can only be seen in the REAL WORLD.

An electron is MEASURABLE,as is a MAGNETIC FIELD.

Both EXIST in the NATURAL WORLD. You asiniely attempt to pretend that what is MADEUP ( a computer model) is "the same" as WHAT EXISTS( aka:"EMPIRICAL DATA")= completely silly.

The "imbecilic" aspect of this debate is in your complete IGNORANCE of what EMPIRICAL DATA is, and you continue to fail to grasp it.

Apparently they failed to cover it in Leftninny Pseudo-Science for High School Freshmen 101.

If you want to keep maintaining that ARBITRARILY DERIVED PARAMETERS, such as in a "computer model", pretending to accurately reproduce climatic conditions from MILLENIA AGO, can yeild "EMPIRICAL DATA"...go ahead.

It just makes for a more entertaining day for the rest of us. Please feel free to continue wallowing in your abject lack of any grasp of ACTUAL scientific method.

Hey..I know! Write one of your "research papers" about it, explaining to the overall scientific community that you've decided to change what the term "EMPIRICAL DATA" means.