Who believes in climate change? Many studies point that global warming is legitimate

Apr 25, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Deseret News

Utah is among a dozen states across the country that flunked an exam gauging recognition of climate change, its impacts on water and how well policies and plans are equipped to meet those challenges.

Comments
1 - 12 of 12 Comments Last updated Apr 26, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 25, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Global warming is fact based science.

Climate change DUE to global warming is a given consequence. You cannot change the inputs to climate without changing the climate. Just the global average temperature change (a consequence of AGW) is a climate change.

The magnitude of that change and the specific instances are yet to be isolated but the general picture is so one sided that 'belief' is not necessary. Common sense is all that is required.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 25, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

4

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Global warming is fact based science.
Here are some facts:

From your link:

[In New York City] sea level may rise approximately 1 to 2 feet by the middle of this century,

2 feet divided by (2050 years minus 2012 years) Works out to 16 mm/yr. The current rate is claimed to be only 3.2 mm/yr.

Comment:
So when is this massive acceleration of nearly 13 mm/yr going to occur considering that the rate of sea level has been decreasing.

Fact

This chart:

http://i39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
Source:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/home/index.h...
See last page:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/docum...

clearly shows the slowdown since 1992.

Comment:
Claims that sea level is or is going to accelerate just don't add up when the empirical record is examined.

**********

So Utah is getting more rain and less snow.

Fact

This site
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/...
Says Winter precipitation has trended up since 1885 and Spring precipitation is slighly down, and overall precipitation is slighlty up.

Comment:
Utah's state climatologist and NOAA need to talk.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 25, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

6

Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are some facts:
From your link:
What link? Are you delusional again?
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
[In New York City] sea level may rise approximately 1 to 2 feet by the middle of this century,
Interesting. How much of that is global sea level and how much of that is differences in distribution of the rise?
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
2 feet divided by (2050 years minus 2012 years) Works out to 16 mm/yr. The current rate is claimed to be only 3.2 mm/yr.
Reasoning: There is no such thing as an explosion. Prior to claimed explosion, the expansion ration of the gases was undetectable. Therefore the explosion cannot occur.

This sort of logic you use is so ludicrous I have to show an analogy to demonstrate the silliness.
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Comment:
So when is this massive acceleration of nearly 13 mm/yr going to occur considering that the rate of sea level has been decreasing.
Two errors. One is that sea level has NOT been decreasing. A small noise' from higher rainfall temporarily leaving more water on land does not change the slope of the SIGNAL.

Secondly, the expectation from paleoclimatology studies, GCM modeling and the acceleration of land bound ice decrease all show a 'doubling per n years' or exponential acceleration as feedbacks accumulate and take effect. A linear 'acceleration' over no time is totally silly nonsense. What we have come to expect from you.

The rest of your delusion are just more of the same so I will let them go. You have amply demonstrated your lack of education and knowledge of this and other subjects.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 25, 2012
 

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 25, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
What link? Are you delusional again?
You were the first to post a comment to the title article
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765571258/...
in The Desert News
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Interesting. How much of that is global sea level and how much of that is differences in distribution of the rise?
Interesting that you don't address the two feet by mid century claim.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Reasoning: There is no such thing as an explosion. Prior to claimed explosion, the expansion ration of the gases was undetectable. Therefore the explosion cannot occur.
This sort of logic you use is so ludicrous I have to show an analogy to demonstrate the silliness.
The current acceleration of sea level is a NEGATIVE 0.06 mm/yr˛ that would have to increase to a POSITUVE 0.35 mm/yr˛ in order to get to the predicted value. That's nearly a seven fold increase in acceleration. Your analogy aside, when do you expect that to start happening? Every month that goes by that the current negative rate continues will drive that number up you know.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Two errors. One is that sea level has NOT been decreasing.
I didn't say it was, the chart I put up didn't say it was, nobody says sea level over the last 25 years is desreasing. You assume that's what I said, but it isn't.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
A small noise' from higher rainfall temporarily leaving more water on land does not change the slope of the SIGNAL.
You're talking about the last year or two. I'm talking about the last 25 years. There is a difference you know.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Secondly, the expectation from paleoclimatology studies, GCM modeling and the acceleration of land bound ice decrease all show a 'doubling per n years' or exponential acceleration as feedbacks accumulate and take effect.
Oh yes, Dr. Hansen says sea level may rise as much as 5 meters by the end of the century and he cites the doubling per 10 years as a scenaario to get there. I have run the numbers on that, and by December 30th 2099 sea level would be going up nearly a millimeter per DAY. Now really, do you think that's possible? You seem to like analogies, so tell me if your car does 0 - 60 MPH in 10 seconds, do you think it will do 120 MMPH in 20 seconds? or 180 in 30?
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
A linear 'acceleration' over no time is totally silly nonsense. What we have come to expect from you.
Another analogy is the one about the farmer who picks up the calf every day figuring he'll be able to lift it as a full grown 2000 lb steer. You guys never run the numbers. You never ask yourselves the question, "Can this be true?"
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The rest of your delusion are just more of the same so I will let them go. You have amply demonstrated your lack of education and knowledge of this and other subjects.
I run the numbers whenever they are available to me, and I usually find that there's a good deal of fudging and cherry picking from you side of things.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 25, 2012
 
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Your links don't seem to work
For some reason each link will work and not work at it's own choosing.

Here's the link to the site. Scroll down to the map and just click on the area you want to see. The graphs at the top are interesting as to the time period and areas of coverage.
The first grey box allow some filtering. It used to provide raw data, they took that down.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_dat...
SpaceBlues

Angleton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 25, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
[Funfact's] links don't seem to work
Goes with his nonworking brain.

His links always support the global warming and climate change but he "believes" otherwise.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 25, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
What link? Are you delusional again?
<quoted text>
Interesting. How much of that is global sea level and how much of that is differences in distribution of the rise?
<quoted text>
Reasoning: There is no such thing as an explosion. Prior to claimed explosion, the expansion ration of the gases was undetectable. Therefore the explosion cannot occur.
This sort of logic you use is so ludicrous I have to show an analogy to demonstrate the silliness.
<quoted text>
Two errors. One is that sea level has NOT been decreasing. A small noise' from higher rainfall temporarily leaving more water on land does not change the slope of the SIGNAL.
Secondly, the expectation from paleoclimatology studies, GCM modeling and the acceleration of land bound ice decrease all show a 'doubling per n years' or exponential acceleration as feedbacks accumulate and take effect. A linear 'acceleration' over no time is totally silly nonsense. What we have come to expect from you.
The rest of your delusion are just more of the same so I will let them go. You have amply demonstrated your lack of education and knowledge of this and other subjects.
I thought about adding this post to your other stupid posts, but there isn't much point, because everyone knows you're the most stupid poster on this forum.
-
There are sillier posters, such as litesout, harvey, SpamBot and a few others, but for stupid, you're unbeatable.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 25, 2012
 

Judged:

6

4

4

The funny thing is they claimed that in a court of law that they would call on expert witnesses such as NASA, NAS, and the DOD. Yet I could all on NASA and have NASA refute it's own claims and do the same with the DOD. As for the NAS, the files I have on them would turn the NAS from an expert witness into a very discredited witness who's very claims would only function to prove it wrong.

Of course the left out the IPCC and the EPA. But then again a good lawyer would make it appear that they were the Keystone Cops.
Samantha_D

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

How else would the mammoth have been frozen while eating?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 26, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Samantha_D wrote:
How else would the mammoth have been frozen while eating?
" A very curious example of the Siberian Mammoth was discovered only a few years ago by a Lamut of one of the Arctic Villages, and through the energy of Dr. Herz was eventually removed in -
pieces to St. Petersburg...... It was sunk in frozen ground, and this cold storage treatment had preserved it in an extraordinary manner."

"If the Siberian natives who had discovered it partially buried in alluvial deposit had not uncovered it, so that the sun was able to play on the carcass and produce decay, this wonderful primeval monster might almost have been got out whole. As it was, the frozen ground had so kept the remains that Dr. Herz had found well-preserved fragments of food between the teeth, and the remains of a hearty meal in the stomach."

"There is no doubt that the Mammoth fell into the crevice or pit and damaged himself so much in the fall that he could not crawl out ......"

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Utah State University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Invention offers solution for dangerous space d... (Nov '13) Nov '13 SpaceBlues 1
Joe Ben Sheffield (Jul '09) Oct '12 Gina NJ 7
Insecure Access Control, Mobile Security, Foren... (Oct '12) Oct '12 Viola86 1
Hakin9 Magazine - Free Download Zone (Oct '12) Oct '12 Viola86 1
Mitt Romney Opens Up About His Religion (Aug '12) Aug '12 conservative crapola 2
The Anti-Mormon Moment: LDS critics capitalize ... (Apr '12) May '12 Suzie Reynolds 18
Preacher: "We're not anti-Mormon, just pro-truth" (Mar '12) Apr '12 No Surprise 242

Search the Utah State University Forum:
•••