Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming is a Scam
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 164 (646724)
01-06-2012 12:28 AM


And Other Reasons there's no Snow in January
In all seriousness, I'd like a little bit of a scientific discussion as to why the winter has been so warm and mild.
I mean, this is typical fall weather up here in Minnesota. I just cracked my windows and turned my heat off... got too hot out.
Is this an expected result of global warming? Or, is this a naturally-occurring weather fluke?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 01-06-2012 10:46 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by Perdition, posted 01-06-2012 11:37 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 01-06-2012 11:40 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 01-06-2012 11:52 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 27 by 1.61803, posted 07-09-2012 4:21 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 164 by Lurkey, posted 11-11-2012 8:58 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 164 (651148)
02-05-2012 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Phat
02-04-2012 9:40 AM


Re: February bucks the trend
Here in Colorado, we just had a mammoth snowstorm. Front Range gets the drift with heavy snow
It's been damnnear 40 all week here.
You folks in the mountains sure got it rough.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 02-04-2012 9:40 AM Phat has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 89 of 164 (668490)
07-22-2012 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2012 5:47 AM


Re: Again... try to understand
Their last-ditch effort, then, is to try to argue that it's not anthropogenic and that therefore there's nothing we can do.
But if human activity isn't the major cause of the warming, it just means that we have to do even more to fix the problem.
If there is a natural increase in carbon gasses that is primarily responsible for the warming, then we have to cut human emissions to zero and figure out a way to get rid of the gasses that are being produced naturally.
Whereas if the cause is mostly anthropogenic, then we only have to worry about cutting emissions, as that should let the problem clear up.
So as jar said, the best case scenario is a case where global warming is entirely caused by humans, because it requires less sacrifice and less effort on our part to fix than the alternative.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2012 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2012 6:56 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 92 of 164 (668494)
07-22-2012 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2012 6:56 AM


Re: Again... try to understand
I suppose you're right. But it depends on the circumstances. If the cause was sunspots, then I guess it would be hard for us to do anything about the sun. We might have a moral obligation to do whatever we could, but maybe we couldn't do anything.
I suppose there are just too many varieties of deniers to keep track of them all.
In the end, though, something must still be donemorally and ethically speakingfor the folks affected, whether you attribute what is happening to global climate change or not.
Dry fields are starving people. Rising oceans are flooding homes.
It is still all about what we can do and not at all about what Mother Nature is doing.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2012 6:56 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2012 9:26 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 164 (671962)
09-01-2012 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by foreveryoung
08-31-2012 10:33 PM


Re: More fun than a barrel of junkies
Lithodid-Man writes:
Humlum, O., J. Solheim, and K. Stordahl (2011) Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change, Global and Planetary Change, vol. 79, pp. 145-156.
McGillis, W. R. and R. Wanninkhof, (2006), Aqueous CO2 gradients for air-sea flux estimates, Marine Chemistry 98 (1), 100-108.
Takahashi, T., S. C. Sutherland, R. Wanninkhof, C. Sweeney, et al. (2009), Climatological mean and decadal change in surface ocean pCO2, and net sea-air CO2 flux over the global oceans, Deep Sea Research (II) 56 (8-10), 554-577.
I suppose these three papers somehow refute I point I have made? If so, why don't you elaborate?
It's called a 'Bibliography'. You need to read the post to see where the content of the cited sources is elaborated on.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by foreveryoung, posted 08-31-2012 10:33 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024