20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes, page 30
posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:55 PM
Really? You have proof of this? Same old tired stories from people that haven't looked into the actual studies, just parroting what they've heard someone else say
Go and look for yourself the evidence is all there.. Really people sound like idiots when they disagree with AGW with no science to back it up.. The consensus is we are the cause and this has been the consensus for over two decades..
I have looked, have you?
An Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd. The alarmism and catastrophism are bubbles. AGW is a mild boon and the greening miraculous.
The only consensus you will find is that C02 levels have been rising since we have started measuring with instrumentation in 1958.
Really people sound like idiots when they disagree with AGW with no science to back it up.
Contained within you would find proof that:
1. Global Temps have not risen in 18 years.
2. The rate of sea level rise has shown no statistically significant acceleration.
3. There has been no increase in Hurricanes or Cyclones.
I would suggest to you that members that jump in at the end of a thread without reading it are the ones that come off sounding like idiots.
posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:21 PM
posted on May, 31 2017 @ 09:37 PM
And there are a few inside the thread who can't let it go when the data you I and a few others have presented from solid research and legitimate scientists with the right degree is proving to be so, well, silly. To many Al Gore wanna be's spouting the narrative of failed theory after failed theory. The data says AGW, from CO2 most especially, is dead in the water and we must move to another theory. Wherever the data leads us not where the narrative says it is supposed to take us!
edit on 31-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:00 AM
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:05 AM
I don't have the ability to watch youtube at the moment, can you give me a rundown of whats on your video please?
edit on 1-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:08 AM
Sure if you did not insult me at every opportunity I would do something like that.
In general actually.
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:15 AM
Well then i can just go by the youtube comments.
. The computers aren't powerful enough to work out the models, the scientists dont want to say what we should do.
I've seen much the same presentations. "We don't have the processing power or data needed to predict future climate."
It's not something a lot of us are unaware of, the climate models are failing, it's obvious they don't have it right.
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:39 AM
Is the only reason your giving me a hard time is because you think its healthy for me?????
Who is we????
Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the
increase is from burning fossil fuels.
Predicting Impacts of Climate Change
Scientists have developed several computer-run simulations, or models, that combine and express in mathematical form what we know about the processes that control the atmospheric and hydrologic systems. The most advanced climate models are called General Circulation Models, or GCM's. These models are the primary tools used by scientists to try to predict the impacts of increased greenhouse gas concentration. The strength of these models is their ability to replicate input-response activities and relationships within complex systems that are far too elaborate for simple interpretation or logic. They have the ability to integrate various feedback processes in order to determine their effects on overall impact, and quickly generate different scenarios under varied assumptions about human activities.
A feedback can be defined as a direct result of a given process that either magnifies (positive feedback) or diminishes (negative feedback) the total effect of that very same process. One example of a positive feedback of global warming is the potential impact of increased concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. As the oceans and atmosphere warm, the rate evaporation increases, causing more water vapor to accumulate in the atmosphere. As we noted earlier, water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, causing even more heat to be trapped in the troposphere. Thus global warming is magnified by a result of its own existence.
Another example is the possibility of melting arctic ice caps releasing large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Ice caps are a strong "sink" for carbon, storing the equivalent of almost one-third of the total carbon in Earth's atmosphere. As the Earth's temperature rises, and arctic permafrost and tundra melt, the carbon will be released into the atmosphere. The result is once again more heat being trapped and an even further increased global temperature.
environ.andrew.cmu.edu...
Maybe you should take a good look and going back to school.
20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes, page 30
posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:55 PM
Really? You have proof of this? Same old tired stories from people that haven't looked into the actual studies, just parroting what they've heard someone else say
Go and look for yourself the evidence is all there.. Really people sound like idiots when they disagree with AGW with no science to back it up.. The consensus is we are the cause and this has been the consensus for over two decades..
I have looked, have you?
An Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd. The alarmism and catastrophism are bubbles. AGW is a mild boon and the greening miraculous.
The only consensus you will find is that C02 levels have been rising since we have started measuring with instrumentation in 1958.
Really people sound like idiots when they disagree with AGW with no science to back it up.
Contained within you would find proof that:
1. Global Temps have not risen in 18 years.
2. The rate of sea level rise has shown no statistically significant acceleration.
3. There has been no increase in Hurricanes or Cyclones.
I would suggest to you that members that jump in at the end of a thread without reading it are the ones that come off sounding like idiots.
posted on May, 30 2017 @ 03:21 PM
posted on May, 31 2017 @ 09:37 PM
And there are a few inside the thread who can't let it go when the data you I and a few others have presented from solid research and legitimate scientists with the right degree is proving to be so, well, silly. To many Al Gore wanna be's spouting the narrative of failed theory after failed theory. The data says AGW, from CO2 most especially, is dead in the water and we must move to another theory. Wherever the data leads us not where the narrative says it is supposed to take us!
edit on 31-5-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:00 AM
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:05 AM
I don't have the ability to watch youtube at the moment, can you give me a rundown of whats on your video please?
edit on 1-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:08 AM
Sure if you did not insult me at every opportunity I would do something like that.
In general actually.
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:15 AM
Well then i can just go by the youtube comments.
. The computers aren't powerful enough to work out the models, the scientists dont want to say what we should do.
I've seen much the same presentations. "We don't have the 
processing power or data needed to predict future climate."
It's not something a lot of us are unaware of, the climate models are failing, it's obvious they don't have it right.
posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 12:39 AM
Is the only reason your giving me a hard time is because you think its healthy for me?????
Who is we????
Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the
increase is from burning fossil fuels.
Predicting Impacts of Climate Change
Scientists have developed several computer-run simulations, or models, that combine and express in mathematical form what we know about the processes that control the atmospheric and hydrologic systems. The most advanced climate models are called General Circulation Models, or GCM's. These models are the primary tools used by scientists to try to predict the impacts of increased greenhouse gas concentration. The strength of these models is their ability to replicate input-response activities and relationships within complex systems that are far too elaborate for simple interpretation or logic. They have the ability to integrate various feedback processes in order to determine their effects on overall impact, and quickly generate different scenarios under varied assumptions about human activities.
A feedback can be defined as a direct result of a given process that either magnifies (positive feedback) or diminishes (negative feedback) the total effect of that very same process. One example of a positive feedback of global warming is the potential impact of increased concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. As the oceans and atmosphere warm, the rate evaporation increases, causing more water vapor to accumulate in the atmosphere. As we noted earlier, water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, causing even more heat to be trapped in the troposphere. Thus global warming is magnified by a result of its own existence.
Another example is the possibility of melting arctic ice caps releasing large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Ice caps are a strong "sink" for carbon, storing the equivalent of almost one-third of the total carbon in Earth's atmosphere. As the Earth's temperature rises, and arctic permafrost and tundra melt, the carbon will be released into the atmosphere. The result is once again more heat being trapped and an even further increased global temperature.
environ.andrew.cmu.edu...
Maybe you should take a good look and going back to school.