All Forums > The Pit > The Pit > How about that.....
1/23/2013 5:11 PM
Posted by jclarkbaker on 1/23/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by greeny9 on 1/23/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):
hey dipshit, I took a look at that link claiming that the ice up north is back to normal, I dont think so, it looks like it currently stands at about the same level is has been for the past 2 or 3 years, no where near what it was in the 80s 90s or 2000s.  If normal is the average that it has been in the past 3 years then you have yet another strange definition of normal.  At this time it looks to be exactly the same as 2012 which as you can see with that graph that 2012 was a record.  Nice link there dipshit.  It proves exactly nothing apart from the fact that the author is trying to spin crap in a way that you like and that I dont like.  Biased as is virtually everything else that you and Swamp-gas ever link too.
Give me a fracking break, you people are ostriches with your heads buried in the ground.

Christ, you are a ******* wack job.  Your handle is perfect.

Here is an article that you will believe, hook line and sinker:

www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/12/09/bakken-oil-boom-and-climate-change-threaten-the-future-of-pasta.html

And why will you believe?  Because you love the "scaremongering":

www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2013/01/lomborg_global_warming_does_not_mean_the_end_of_pasta.html
Im a wack job?  I think my analyses of your links are pretty accurate.  That graph certainly doesnt scream to me that ice levels in the arctic are anywhere near normal.

That pasta article is interesting.  I didnt read the whole thing because I dont need too.  I have read enough of those articles.  If scaremongering gets a small percentage of deniers to start believing there is at least a bit of truth in the climate change problem the yes, I am all for it.

As for your second link yah, it goes in the exact opposite direction now doesnt it?  Again, I didnt read the whole thing because I know what its going to say, dont worry be happy.  Theres nothing you can do, so why worry about it?  Or thereabouts...

Tell you what baker, you go right along believing what you believe in, and Ill do the same.  Why bother banging our heads against the wall?   No convincing going on here.


1/24/2013 9:42 AM
2012 PART OF A SUSTAINED LONG-TERM CLIMATE WARMING TREND

NASA scientists have shown that 2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, which continues a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 132-year record shows that the nine warmest years have occurred since 2000 (with the exception of 1998); 2010 and 2005 were ranked as the hottest years on record.

An updated analysis was released this month by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), comparing global temperatures in 2012 with the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. This comparison showed that Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than many decades ago.

The average global temperature in 2012 was about 14.6°C (58.3°F), 0.6°C (1.0°F) warmer than the baseline in the mid-20th century. The new analysis shows that the average global temperature has risen about 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880.
While weather patterns will always carry some fluctuations in average temperature from year to year, the continued increase of greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere ensures there will be a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each year will not necessarily be warmer than the previous year, but based on the current increase in greenhouse gases each decade is expected to be warmer on average than the previous decade.

The significance lies not in another year of higher temperatures worldwide, but in the fact that this current decade is warmer than the last, and that decade in turn was warmer than the one before. The increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the warming.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; greenhouse gases trap heat and control Earth’s climate. The gas occurs naturally but also is emitted through the burning of fossil fuels for energy purposes. The level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been increasing consistently for decades.

The first year in the GISS temperature record is 1880, when the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million. By 1960 the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was about 315 parts per million. Today the concentration is over 390 parts per million.

The continental U.S. experienced its warmest year on record in 2012. According to GISS director James E. Hansen, this is ‘an example of a new trend of outlying seasonal extremes that are warmer than the hottest seasonal temperatures of the mid-20th century.’ Some seasons are expected to be cooler than the long-term average; however the frequency of unusually warm extremes is increasing. These extremes have the biggest impact on all life on the planet, including humans.

GISS compiled weather data from more than 1,000 global meteorological stations, satellite observations of sea-surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements to produce the temperature analysis. There are other global temperature analyses; the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. are two of several used. Though the three primary records use slightly different methods, their trends are in close agreement.

The map represents global temperature anomalies averaged from 2008 through 2012. Click the first source listed below to see an animation showing the change in global temperatures from 1880 to 2012.

-TEL

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719354main_NOAA%20NASA%20Climate%20Briefing.pdf

Data source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Visualization credit: NASA Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio


1/24/2013 9:56 AM
occsid....the non-believers don't believe in science...
1/24/2013 10:08 AM
"James E. Hansen?  Who is that guy?

Oh, here, enjoy:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578258172660564886.html
1/24/2013 11:14 AM
jclark links are like rickrolls

neither one delivers what's promised.
1/24/2013 8:00 PM
Video of arctic ice loss

www.youtube.com/watch
1/24/2013 11:54 PM
zomg!
1/25/2013 1:14 AM
Posted by genghisxcon on 1/24/2013 11:14:00 AM (view original):
jclark links are like rickrolls

neither one delivers what's promised.
Every one says blog or opinion also....
1/25/2013 9:24 AM
Hey, dont be bad mouthing bloggers, those guys are unimpeachable!  And I am sure those opinion writers were giving absolutely bias free scientific based facts only.  ;)
1/28/2013 10:49 AM
1/28/2013 11:52 AM
yes its really inconvenient.

your right baker, theres no such thing as global warming.  blah blah blah  Im going to stick my head in the sand like you and Swampy.

I give you permission to believe whatever you want to believe man.  But dont ever think you are going to change my mind on this matter I have read 10 times as much on this subject then you have.  And I can say with absolute certainty that we are ****** if your opinion wins out.  Heck, even if my opinion wins out and we start making major changes right now its going to be a hard battle.  And even with massive changes we are likely to come out with some severe headaches anyways.

1/28/2013 12:56 PM
Posted by greeny9 on 1/28/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
yes its really inconvenient.

your right baker, theres no such thing as global warming.  blah blah blah  Im going to stick my head in the sand like you and Swampy.

I give you permission to believe whatever you want to believe man.  But dont ever think you are going to change my mind on this matter I have read 10 times as much on this subject then you have.  And I can say with absolute certainty that we are ****** if your opinion wins out.  Heck, even if my opinion wins out and we start making major changes right now its going to be a hard battle.  And even with massive changes we are likely to come out with some severe headaches anyways.

And by hard changes you mean the dismantling of Western Capitalism?

Dont be shy. Tell the world what you want to have happen to "Save" us!
1/28/2013 1:21 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/28/2013 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by greeny9 on 1/28/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
yes its really inconvenient.

your right baker, theres no such thing as global warming.  blah blah blah  Im going to stick my head in the sand like you and Swampy.

I give you permission to believe whatever you want to believe man.  But dont ever think you are going to change my mind on this matter I have read 10 times as much on this subject then you have.  And I can say with absolute certainty that we are ****** if your opinion wins out.  Heck, even if my opinion wins out and we start making major changes right now its going to be a hard battle.  And even with massive changes we are likely to come out with some severe headaches anyways.

And by hard changes you mean the dismantling of Western Capitalism?

Dont be shy. Tell the world what you want to have happen to "Save" us!
Actually, its not necessary to destroy capitalism.  Localism will go a long way towards curbing most GHGs, and it will also help immensely the local economies.  And with the massive influx of money it can go towards incentives for further research into green tech that can truely make the difference.  I know you dont believe in renewable energy, but it is the future, and the sooner that N America REALLY jumps on board the sooner we can make huge changes.  Every new development should have requirements that it had to supply its own energy requirements through solar panels on its roofs, and wind power in proper places, and designing the building to be as efficient as possible.  CAFE (mileage requirements) were set high up enough that hummers and large SUVs were basically impossible to build and sell.  And with the high CAFE numbers real research would go into making engines much more efficient.

And these are just the things coming off the top of my head.  And Im no expert.  These things when all added up would cost the end consumer very little, and would in fact when you count all the benefits would make N America much more rich, because all those great paying jobs that have left would be coming back.  Unemployment would nearly be a thing of the past.  And with the much stricter enviro guidelines in N America then in China there would be that huge benefit too.

I suppose with all these changes the government wouldnt truely be capitalist anymore, it would be closer to socialist.  Oh well, it would be a heck of a lot better then it is now.

1/28/2013 4:26 PM
1 It isnt that I dont believe in renwable energy. It is that the science doesnt add up yet. We cannot maintain our society in wind and sun. Maybe sometime or maybe never but not now.

2 Localism is another word for forced socialism. Every area having to produce everything it needs for survival isnt the best system. And costs would skyrocket. And the collapse of the global food market would cause worldwide strife.

3 Market forces are causing ngine research, not illogical government mandates.

4 So socialism is the answer? Where did it ever work? How well was China doing before they adopted capitalism lite?
1/28/2013 4:44 PM
"But dont ever think you are going to change my mind on this matter..." - greeny9

See everyone?  Are you starting to understand?  He'll never change his mind.  Yet Repubs are "anti-science", right?  Isn't science all about doubt?  The scientific method?  We have example upon example of scientists admitting their studies are flawed.  Admitting they don't know enough about this planet to predict what the climate will look like in the future.  But don't tell the true believers like greeny9.  Because nothing will change his mind.  Dammit, they still know that man is at fault.  How could man not be at fault, right greeny9?
of 28
All Forums > The Pit > The Pit > How about that.....

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.