Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real. Full Story

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#8114 Mar 18, 2013
Julio wrote:
I do recalect in wv every coal miner had a snow mobile.Till 1980.Every one had one, there were no 4 wheelers.They road em to work or got tuned in and raised hell.lIKE NOW.lAST TIME I saw a snow mobile it was in a garage and hasn't ben started in yrs.The caps r melting.The planet is drying up.If you look @ the great lakes you can see that used to one big pool untill they receeded into their deapest parts. a nd that is not done.Lv ya
So...where has ALL the water gone? Is the earth only 2/5 covered with water now instead of the scientific 2/3?
Just wondering...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#8115 Mar 18, 2013
Check this one out... The rate at which the temperature is rising took a huge leap starting a century ago, and its due to human activity. Were seeing the effects now, from the ice caps melting to changes in vegetation growth rates. There is no scientific controversy here, just a manufactured political and ideological one.[Phil Plait]

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#8116 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Yet, no experimental evidence shows our greenhouse gas emissions are able to change climate temperature. As each greenhouse gas molecule is added to the atmosphere, it has less warming effect than the previous molecule.

>>False on both counts, the second claim is absurd, in fact.

<quoted text>Again, no experimental test proves tha Professor's claim above.

>>Yawwwwnnn....repetitiv e

<quoted text>None of the studies cited shows the effect of man made greenhouse gas on atmospheric temperature. That's how you can know climate change mitigation is a hoax.

>>Absurd conclusion based on a falsehood, no surprise.

<quoted text>You asked me to cite my claim: "There are several experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect, they tend to show a far lower CO2 forcing than the IPCC's most conservative estimates." The experiments I cited in my previous post prove the greenhouse effect is weak and our greenhouse gas contributions are insignificant.

>>No, they don't, but you're too dishonest to admit it.

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#8117 Mar 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Check this one out... The rate at which the temperature is rising took a huge leap starting a century ago, and its due to human activity. Were seeing the effects now, from the ice caps melting to changes in vegetation growth rates. There is no scientific controversy here, just a manufactured political and ideological one.[Phil Plait]
Bu, buh, buh, Brainless_G said "each greenhouse gas molecule added to the atmosphere has less warming effect than the previous molecule," so how could that BE???

LOL
Wake up

United States

#8118 Mar 18, 2013
GOD Says It's
Global Freezing And Global Scorching
Not Global Warming!
http://www.alamoministries.com/content/englis...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#8119 Mar 18, 2013
Wake up wrote:
GOD Says It's
Global Freezing And Global Scorching
Not Global Warming!
..
This is what I read today.

The rate at which the temperature is rising took a huge leap starting a century ago, and its due to human activity. Were seeing the effects now, from the ice caps melting to changes in vegetation growth rates. There is no scientific controversy here, just a manufactured political and ideological one.[by Phil Plait]
PHD

Overton, TX

#8120 Mar 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>This is what I read today.
The rate at which the temperature is rising took a huge leap starting a century ago, and its due to human activity. Were seeing the effects now, from the ice caps melting to changes in vegetation growth rates. There is no scientific controversy here, just a manufactured political and ideological one.[by Phil Plait]
So submit your scientific science fiction nonsense to Hollywood and make another scientific science fiction movie. You have spammed to world more than 900,000times with your nonsense. Go compete with the proper scientific science fiction movie arena.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#8121 Mar 18, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Bu, buh, buh, Brainless_G said "each greenhouse gas molecule added to the atmosphere has less warming effect than the previous molecule," so how could that BE???
LOL
LOL.

Deniers should be shocked with the truth as explained here:

PHD

Overton, TX

#8123 Mar 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL.
Deniers should be shocked with the truth as explained here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sJp3_DcN1i4XX
So submit your scientific science fiction nonsense to Hollywood and make another scientific science fiction movie. You have spammed to world more than 900,000times with your nonsense. Go compete with the proper scientific science fiction movie arena.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#8124 Mar 19, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>So submit your scientific science fiction nonsense to Hollywood and make another scientific science fiction movie. You have spammed to world more than 900,000times with your nonsense. Go compete with the proper scientific science fiction movie arena.
I did not ask your opinion about a thing. Nothing.

You are dismissed again.

P.S. Get help.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8125 Mar 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Bu, buh, buh, Brainless_G said "each greenhouse gas molecule added to the atmosphere has less warming effect than the previous molecule," so how could that BE??? LOL
It's because as CO2 is increased geometrically, warming increases arithmetically. The temperature increases one unit for each doubling of CO2 in the air.

So, the CO2 molecules you exhale when you finish reading this post has less effect than the CO2 molecules you exhaled before you started reading.

Doesn't that make you feel better? Isn't climate beautiful?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8126 Mar 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Yet, no experimental evidence shows our greenhouse gas emissions are able to change climate temperature. As each greenhouse gas molecule is added to the atmosphere, it has less warming effect than the previous molecule.
>>False on both counts, the second claim is absurd, in fact.
The second claim is Svante Arrhenius's greenhouse gas law, science says as CO2 increases geometrically warming increases arithmetically. That's been experimentally demonstrated in lab experiments. What makes you think there's a difference in nature?

If you believe there are compelling experimental tests of climate change mitigation, cite one. I'm waiting.

.
tha Professor wrote:
Again, no experimental test proves tha Professor's claim above. >>Yawwwwnnn....repetitiv e
.
tha Professor wrote:
None of the studies cited shows the effect of man made greenhouse gas on atmospheric temperature. That's how you can know climate change mitigation is a hoax.
>>Absurd conclusion based on a falsehood, no surprise.
Cite an experiment, I've cited three that prove my case. Tha Professor hasn't discussed one.

.
tha Professor wrote:
You asked me to cite my claim: "There are several experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect, they tend to show a far lower CO2 forcing than the IPCC's most conservative estimates." The experiments I cited in my previous post prove the greenhouse effect is weak and our greenhouse gas contributions are insignificant.
>>No, they don't, but you're too dishonest to admit it.
Still waiting.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#8127 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It's because as CO2 is increased geometrically, warming increases arithmetically.
There's no such science. If you were educated in science, you would never see such a statement.

As I said before, where's your science? You only repeat another question to that or post another nonscience opinion. You've done this for about 40,000 times for many years.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The temperature increases one unit for each doubling of CO2 in the air.
This is not true either.

Science does not operate without a context.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>So, the CO2 molecules you exhale when you finish reading this post has less effect than the CO2 molecules you exhaled before you started reading.
That's not true.

Furthermore, I have objected your equating baby breaths with coal stack pollution.

Go live next to a coal mine or coal power plant.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Doesn't that make you feel better? Isn't climate beautiful?
LOL.

40,000 times!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#8128 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>To another poster:

The second claim is Svante Arrhenius's greenhouse gas law, science says as CO2 increases geometrically warming increases arithmetically. That's been experimentally demonstrated in lab experiments. What makes you think there's a difference in nature?
If you believe there are compelling experimental tests of climate change mitigation, cite one. I'm waiting.
.
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>Cite an experiment, I've cited three that prove my case. Tha Professor hasn't discussed one.
.
<quoted text>Still waiting.
LOL. You actually accuse scientists of not knowing science.

How dare you!
The Iron Dictator

Podgorica, Montenegro

#8129 Mar 19, 2013
It is all lie and mith by Jews from JEW owned UN.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8130 Mar 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL. You actually accuse scientists of not knowing science. How dare you!
I accused tha Professor of not knowing science. Do you think he's a scientist because his avatar is wearing a white lab coat?

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#8131 Mar 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The second claim is Svante Arrhenius's greenhouse gas law, science says as CO2 increases geometrically warming increases arithmetically. That's been experimentally demonstrated in lab experiments. What makes you think there's a difference in nature?

>>Arrhenius' equation of reaction rates (not a "greenhouse gas law") says that, yes. Of course you want to spin that into the implication that a mere arithmetic increase is somehow reducing the warming effect of my breath, or some other CO2 or warming gas source, which is typical of your approach to warming as a Denialist.

>>However, didn't Arrhenius also say, based on his experiments, that a halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 45 C (Celsius), but doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 56 C? Doesn't that demolish your claim that warming mitigation is "unproven" or even a "hoax?" Hasn't Arrhenius already shown us that it's every bit as possible as warming is?

If you believe there are compelling experimental tests of climate change mitigation, cite one. I'm waiting.

>>You know I'm not playing your game, so why keep asking?

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#8132 Mar 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I accused tha Professor of not knowing science. Do you think he's a scientist because his avatar is wearing a white lab coat?
You say a lot of foolish and disingenuous things. You overrate the value placed on your comments by other posters, I think.:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8134 Mar 21, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
...>>However, didn't Arrhenius also say, based on his experiments, that a halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 45 C (Celsius), but doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 56 C? Doesn't that demolish your claim that warming mitigation is "unproven" or even a "hoax?" Hasn't Arrhenius already shown us that it's every bit as possible as warming is?
No, Arrehenius didn't say "halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 45 C (Celsius), but doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 56 C". He found a symetrical effect which he estimated at 4C for each doubling of CO2. Neither has anyone experimentally demonstrated a temperature change in climate from man made greenhouse gasses.

.
tha Professor wrote:
If you believe there are compelling experimental tests of climate change mitigation, cite one. I'm waiting. >>You know I'm not playing your game, so why keep asking?
I have an objective standard for my belief climate change mitigation is a hoax; the experimental record. What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#8136 Mar 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, Arrehenius didn't say "halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 45 C (Celsius), but doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 56 C". He found a symetrical effect which he estimated at 4C for each doubling of CO2. Neither has anyone experimentally demonstrated a temperature change in climate from man made greenhouse gasses.
.
<quoted text>I have an objective standard for my belief climate change mitigation is a hoax; the experimental record. What would cause you to change your mind about climate change mitigation?
"Objective?" I half suspect that you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Rogue Scholar 05 179,296
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min fetch almighty 1,125,570
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 15 min David 98,501
Abby 10-22 28 min Sublime1 4
Emanuel set to outline re-election agenda in fi... 50 min Walt Kowalski 3
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Eric 70,030
Abby 10-20 1 hr Ralph 20
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]