Global Warming Grounded in Science

There are 6 comments on the Sep 26, 2010, New University story titled Global Warming Grounded in Science. In it, New University reports that:

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that human activities have caused global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New University.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#63 Oct 8, 2010
Nomos Soter wrote:
... Green energy and production is necessary and more beneficial to society. We should absolutely get off of our hydrocarbon addiction.
I'm addicted to carbohydrates, I like it. Hydrocarbons are beautiful things, they make medicine and window shades, fuel and energy. Green energy is bogus, famine wrapped up in biofuel, green energy and production is a hoax brought to you by GE, BP and Cousin Jed, folks who think they know more than customers and producers.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#64 Oct 9, 2010
More on why the sun is not the root cause of climate warming in the past century. A good summary of current science, with references, and a fine video as well...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#65 Oct 10, 2010
Northie wrote:
More on why the sun is not the root cause of climate warming in the past century. A good summary of current science, with references, and a fine video as well...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...
HAHAHA....what a stupid and lying post.

The AGW'ers are FRAUDS and it's EASILY PROVEN.

They have FRAUDULENTLY REDUCED the temperature of the SUN!

The AGW'ers have used a FRAUDULENT Sun temperature of only 5778 K, when it is actually 6273 K (6000 deg C).

The Sun easily accounts for the Earth's average +15 deg C temperature.

In fact, the Sun will produce an Earth Blackbody no atmosphere temperature of +29.40 Deg C.
The addition of an atmosphere and all other factors, COOLS the Earth to +15 deg C.

Read my post here for PROOF!
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

I have posted this for you many times...and you NEVER respond to the FACTS.
----------
Why do you continually babble your Proven LIES?

Common Traits shared by AGW'ers on Topix

1. A room temperature IQ
2. Has a "Green Brain"....a symptom of a severe infection.
3. Always loses battles of wits because they are unarmed.
4. What they lack in intelligence, they more than make up for in stupidity.
5. Have nothing to say, but delight in saying it.
6. Have a speech impediment ... their foot.
7. Would still be a virgin except for what nature did to their mind.
8. They are not complete idiots -- some parts are missing.
9. When confronted with the Truth they use their only skill....LYING.
10. When they are confronted with their Lying...they will continue to LIE

Northie has been at step #10 for a long time now and is stuck there....forever.

How Pathetic.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#66 Oct 10, 2010
Northie wrote:
More on why the sun is not the root cause of climate warming in the past century. A good summary of current science, with references, and a fine video as well...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...
If your going to impress the average person let alone a skeptic then you need a far better source than a web site that has been the poster child for AGW.

That entire link was written with so much spin to it that you could use it to refine radioactive materials. Nor am I impressed with videos. I usally find them best for the more simple minded individuals and usally used as propaganda to promote something since the more simple minded tend to be convinced by what they see on the screen.

“Emblem of the Brave and True”

Since: Sep 10

Los Angeles, CA

#67 Oct 13, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are demonstrating is that you willingly 'believe' one rather badly received paper by one scientist rather than the thousands of papers by the mainstream.
What I was demonstrating is that there are scientific arguments that make valid points keeping me unable to completely accept the belief of global warming as fact. That was one citation I used as example of one point. As I am not a scientist and do not devote my existence on climatology, I don't know how well received papers are. I can only assume that it would badly received as it makes arguments to the current consensus. Writings of Galileo and Copernicus were badly received at first. That didn't change the substance of the writings though.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It just shows further that you are not impartial but are looking for 'confirmational bias' for what you have already decided you want to agree with.
What you call 'confirmation bias'(which seems more like pot calling kettle black) I call having questions relating to the predictions modeled on incomplete and therefore science. Yes I go and look for research in opposition to mainstream opinion because it allows me to understand the subject matter more and gives the global warming advocates questions to answer. Those questions allows for more complete science and if anything should only solidify their theory. From those answers using complete science I will use in accepting either one position or the other.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I won't even debate the paper as you seem unwilling to discuss anything of substance. How do you dismiss the effect of a 40% increase in greenhouse gas level, by the way. Just ignore them?
You asked me a question about the 40% increase. I don't specifically know , but perhaps this scientist might:

"For two decades, French scientist Jérôme Chappellaz has been examining ice cores collected from deep inside the polar ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. His studies on the interconnecting air spaces of old snow — or firn air — in the ice cores show that the roughly 40 percent increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Earth’s last deglaciation can be attributed in large part to changes in the circulation and biological activity of the oceanic waters surrounding Antarctica.

By measuring the carbon isotopes in the firn air, scientists can pinpoint the source of atmospheric carbon during the millennia. Because living organisms at the surface of the oceans tend to take up the lighter of the carbon isotopes, 13C, and this isotope is then released when the organisms decay, scientists know the higher concentration of 13C is originating from the oceans.

Normally, the organisms die, sink to the ocean depths, and decompose, releasing carbon that remains stored in the cold, deep waters for centuries. But a growing concentration of the isotope 13C in the air during the last deglaciation indicates that this “old” carbon from decomposition was released from the southern polar waters, where the Antarctic Circumpolar Current transports more water than any other current in the world. Here, oceanic circulation is increasing in intensity and the deep water is releasing carbon dioxide at the surface."

And I would like to know if you include water vapor as a greenhouse gas and if so if that has risen by 40 percent, and what you think about the arguments that as far as greenhouse gasses go; water vapor is by far more of contributing factor in climate temperature regulation than carbon dioxide.


*******note: This is a question and I am not claiming anything through asking it, I have been informed that the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.*********
Reality Check

Houston, TX

#68 Oct 13, 2010
Ohhhhh Puuulllleease........So much D-R-A-M-A. There is NO GLOBAL WARMING. It is just as hot as it ever has been and just as cold as it ever has been.

The "greeny weenys" just want to TAKE OVER THE UNITED STATES and run it like a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.....but what they haven't banked on is..........WE AMERICANS AIN'T BUYIN' YOUR SH*T.

So GET OVER YOUR BAD SELVES.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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.

UC Irvine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Army Research Grant to Explore Communication Th... (Sep '08) Apr 6 Ken Baltimorean 8,272
News Study: Democrats have more positive body langua... Mar '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 39
News Flag ban in UC Irvine lobby sparks debate Mar '15 Sneaky Pete 5
News Same-sex marriage arguments flooding federal co... (Aug '14) Mar '15 kuda 30
News Teen 'Burns From Inside Out' After Allergic Rea... Dec '14 Spotted Girl 4
News Editorial: UC tuition hikes don't sit well Nov '14 Ace McMillan 4
News NASA Begins Sixth Year Of Airborne Antarctic Ic... (Oct '14) Oct '14 One way or another 4
More from around the web