Federal report: Warming is disrupting America with weird weather, rising pollen, more costs

May 6, 2014 Read more: Cape Breton Post 1,084

Global warming is rapidly turning America into a stormy and dangerous place, with rising seas and disasters costing citizens from flood-stricken Florida to the wildfire-ravaged West, according to a new U.S. federal scientific report.

Read more

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#588 May 15, 2014
Christsharians on the DL wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you're saying the remark about co2 and holding one's nose made sense? It didn't.
The methane which gets released into the air does smell. Its sources are not emitting pure gases, but that would get us into a discussion of meat production, and we know anti rational fundies and tee baggrz can't and won't be rational about those well known facts.
sorry....but you're wrong again. methane is odorless. and....it doesn't matter if another poster made sense or not. you're still wrong about methane, son.

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#589 May 15, 2014
Christsharians on the DL wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep bringing up fundamentalists and tee baggrz because they hold a constellation of views like climate change denial, earth under 10000 years old, guns make homes safer, vaccines more dangerous than the diseases they protect against, Birtherism, Creationism which all share the same anti rationality. They aren't exactly bright people, I mean, apart from their feral attachment to ideology over basic information.
You're confused again with your made up mitigation claim. No one disputes the effect of greenhouse gases. There's no controversy about what less or more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere means. Mitigation would have an effect, just as increased emissions do.(There are some kooks who are trying to claim that these greenhouse effects are not very serious. That's different.)
btw.....there are several adverse effects to mitigation, son.
Boomhauer

Owensboro, KY

#590 May 15, 2014
man i tell you what man anybody say they dont believe in that old global warming man i tell you what man they just like that old ostrich man i tell you what man ol bush lovin mfs man
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#591 May 15, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>co2 has an amplifying effect, but lags temperature. don't sweat it! a warmer climate has benefits, too, even if the hoax was true.
First, aroom temperature and stp, methane is a colorless, odorless gas.[8] The familiar smell of natural gas as used in homes is a safety measure achieved by the addition of an odorant, usually blends containing tert-butylthiol.[wikipedia]

Second, no, CO2 precedes temperature rise! How many times you have been corrected for this!

CO2 is a grrenhouse gas, shish!

A warmer climate does not necessarily bring benefits. There is no hoax: the first ever man-made global climate change in the universe is not a picnic therein thereby.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#592 May 15, 2014
at room..

At room temperature and standard pressure, methane is a colorless, odorless gas.[8] The familiar smell of natural gas as used in homes is a safety measure achieved by the addition of an odorant, usually blends containing tert-butylthiol.[wikipedia]

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#593 May 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
at room..
At room temperature and standard pressure, methane is a colorless, odorless gas.[8] The familiar smell of natural gas as used in homes is a safety measure achieved by the addition of an odorant, usually blends containing tert-butylthiol.[wikipedia]
thanks for proving my point about methane, son!

sorry......you're wrong about co2 not being a lagger!
http://www.thegwpf.org/paper-carbon-dioxide-l...

co2 is a ghg......why do you insist that it's all bad, son? can't admit that it has benefits and call yourself an environmentalist??? the trees and plants of the world would be very unhappy with your ignorance, son.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#594 May 15, 2014
As described in a paper published April 5 in Nature, researchers compiled ice and sedimentary core samples collected from dozens of locations around the world, and found evidence that while changes in the planet’s orbit may have touched off a warming trend, increases in CO2 played a far more important role in pushing it out of the ice age.

“The previous science clearly said that CO2 had something to do with warming,” Shakun added.“It has gone up and down in tandem with the ice ages, so it is clearly involved. If it was an amplifier, the question was: How big of an amplifier? Does it explain a lot of climate change, or was it a small piece, and other factors were more important? I think this research really points a strong finger at the idea that CO2 was a major player.”

.. but a gradual change in the Earth’s orbit. That change resulted in more sunlight hitting the northern hemisphere. As the ice sheets over North America and Europe melted, millions of gallons of fresh water flooded into the North Atlantic and disrupted the cyclical flow of ocean currents.

“Ocean circulation works like a global conveyor belt,” Shakun said.“The reason it’s important for climate is because it’s moving heat around. If you look at it today, the northern hemisphere is, on average, a couple degrees warmer than the south, and that’s partly because the ocean is pulling heat northward as it flows across the equator in the Atlantic.

“But if you turn the conveyor belt off, it’s going to warm the south because you’re no longer stealing that heat away. Warming the southern hemisphere, in turn, shifts the winds and melts back sea ice that had formed a cap, trapping carbon in the deep ocean.”

As more and more CO2 enters the atmosphere, Shakun said, the global warming trend continues,“and pretty soon you’re headed out of an ice age.”
[from harvardgazette]
Christsharians on the DL

Philadelphia, PA

#595 May 15, 2014
You failed chemistry wrote:
<quoted text> No.... All methane is odorless. So is Propane, butane, and other gaseous hydrocarbons. It's the Sulfur compounds added to gas supplies that you smell. It is the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide in bio-gas sources that you smell. Methane is one single compound and it is odorless.
I think we know..scratch that.

I know that the methane pertinent to climate change today is not being released in pure form. It's from cattle.

Now, if Siberian tundra melts wholesale we'll have to see.

The joke about holding your nose over co2 made no possible sense.
Christsharians on the DL

Philadelphia, PA

#596 May 15, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>co2 has an amplifying effect, but lags temperature. don't sweat it! a warmer climate has benefits, too, even if the hoax was true.
The co2 "joke" made no sense, as I said.

No one disputes the greenhouse effect of co2, etc.

Temperature can lag depending where on the planet you measure it, but co2 is causal, the point.

Because everyone, even you, acknowledges that co2 has a greenhouse effect. Along with methane, etc.

The climate effects we're already seeing are uniformly negative. Some theoretical crop yield increase won't mean anything in the context of rising seas, thermally expanding oceans, increased pest populations, reduction in water due to drought, more violent storms.

Only a genuine fool would claim so. Oh look, there you are posting now....
Christsharians on the DL

Philadelphia, PA

#597 May 15, 2014
You failed chemistry wrote:
<quoted text>You keep bringing up Fundementalist because you are anon-christian
No, I'm not anon-Christian, or more likely you meant, anti-Christian.(Are you drunk?)

Most Christians are not fundamentalists. I don't have a problem with mainstream Christians. Just fundies, theocrats, mullahs, cults, etc.

I explained my problem with fundamentalists: It's a sign of genuine insanity to claim the earth is under 10000 years old. And that anti rationality goes hand in hand with all the other bigotries and dogmas and obstacles to progress I listed before.
Christsharians on the DL

Philadelphia, PA

#598 May 15, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
at room..
At room temperature and standard pressure, methane is a colorless, odorless gas.[8] The familiar smell of natural gas as used in homes is a safety measure achieved by the addition of an odorant, usually blends containing tert-butylthiol.[wikipedia]
That is not the greenhouse emission. Not until it's burned or unless it comes out of farm animals. Then it's a greenhouse gas.

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#599 May 16, 2014
Christsharians on the DL wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you pretend that you know climate change is not human mediated and is not a problem.
You have stated that and other nonsense directly.
Now you're dissembling badly about having so stated.
You don't know anything. You're not a skeptic. You're an ideologue. Oh, and a bigot.
A racial bigot, a sexual bigot or a climate bigot or all 3? lol
I forgot to answer back about China: China is growing its industrial base, and polluting/emitting all kinds of pollutants. CO2 is probably one of the more benign things they release(I know a dude that set up a factory there when the U.S. made it too expensive to do here).
Even if the U.S. drastically reduced CO2 emissions, crippling our economy, China and other countries that don't give a "tinkers damn" about the environment would pick up the slack in manufacturing and emit toxic chemicals as well as CO2 that y'all are worried about. The Chinese are busy exploiting any natural resource they can grab and drilling oil off our shores, transporting oil in some rickity arsed boats. Anybody remember the thousands of dead pigs they had floating in the yellow river? The river is actually more of a flammable rainbow color with some glow in the dark. If our economy is weakened any further, we won't have to worry about "climate change" killing us off.

“Nobel Peace in Our Prize”

Since: Mar 10

Huntington, NY

#600 May 16, 2014
Christsharians on the DL wrote:
<quoted text>
That remark is not just disingenuous, but is insane.
We know the earth is more than 10000 years old. Talibangelical nutcases don't know that, but anyone with a fourth grade education knows it.
Whether the earth is three or four or four and a half billion years old is moot as far as this goes. We know the buybull does not involve science. Nor do witless fundies.
Creationists, et. al., on the laughable "list" are the opposite of qualified.
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article...

Take your junk science back to those commie countries you've wrecked.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#601 May 16, 2014
The resistance of conspiracist ideation to contrary evidence renders its prominence in the rejection of science particularly troubling, because providing additional scientific information may only amplify the rejection of such evidence, rather than foster its acceptance. Instead, conspiracist misconceptions of scientific issues are best met by indirect means, such as affirmation of the competence and character of proponents of conspiracy theories, or affirmation of other beliefs they hold dearly [32], [50]. Such self-affirmation is known to facilitate the dislodging of attitudes in response to information that would otherwise be considered too threatening [51]. Alternatively, efforts should be made to rebut many conspiracy theories at the same time because multiple rebuttals raise the complexity of possible conspiracist responses, thereby rendering it increasingly baroque and less believable to anyone outside a committed circle of conspiracy theorists [32].

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#602 May 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
As described in a paper published April 5 in Nature, researchers compiled ice and sedimentary core samples collected from dozens of locations around the world, and found evidence that while changes in the planet’s orbit may have touched off a warming trend, increases in CO2 played a far more important role in pushing it out of the ice age.
“The previous science clearly said that CO2 had something to do with warming,” Shakun added.“It has gone up and down in tandem with the ice ages, so it is clearly involved. If it was an amplifier, the question was: How big of an amplifier? Does it explain a lot of climate change, or was it a small piece, and other factors were more important? I think this research really points a strong finger at the idea that CO2 was a major player.”
.. but a gradual change in the Earth’s orbit. That change resulted in more sunlight hitting the northern hemisphere. As the ice sheets over North America and Europe melted, millions of gallons of fresh water flooded into the North Atlantic and disrupted the cyclical flow of ocean currents.
“Ocean circulation works like a global conveyor belt,” Shakun said.“The reason it’s important for climate is because it’s moving heat around. If you look at it today, the northern hemisphere is, on average, a couple degrees warmer than the south, and that’s partly because the ocean is pulling heat northward as it flows across the equator in the Atlantic.
“But if you turn the conveyor belt off, it’s going to warm the south because you’re no longer stealing that heat away. Warming the southern hemisphere, in turn, shifts the winds and melts back sea ice that had formed a cap, trapping carbon in the deep ocean.”
As more and more CO2 enters the atmosphere, Shakun said, the global warming trend continues,“and pretty soon you’re headed out of an ice age.”
[from harvardgazette]
http://www.warwickhughes.com/i cecore/

let your science catch up, son

i doubt you'll change your position, though, since your position has nothing to do with science, does it?

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#603 May 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
The resistance of conspiracist ideation to contrary evidence renders its prominence in the rejection of science particularly troubling, because providing additional scientific information may only amplify the rejection of such evidence, rather than foster its acceptance. Instead, conspiracist misconceptions of scientific issues are best met by indirect means, such as affirmation of the competence and character of proponents of conspiracy theories, or affirmation of other beliefs they hold dearly [32],[50]. Such self-affirmation is known to facilitate the dislodging of attitudes in response to information that would otherwise be considered too threatening [51]. Alternatively, efforts should be made to rebut many conspiracy theories at the same time because multiple rebuttals raise the complexity of possible conspiracist responses, thereby rendering it increasingly baroque and less believable to anyone outside a committed circle of conspiracy theorists [32].
don't call people conspiracy theorists who disprove your pseudoscience, son.

it makes you look even more hilarious and desperate, son.

lol

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#604 May 16, 2014
Christsharians on the DL wrote:
<quoted text>

No one disputes the greenhouse effect of co2, etc.
.
why are you here then, son???

man made co2 is the driver of all the calamities you're listing??

then prove it, son!!

many climate scientists who stand around scratching their head would love to hear from you, i'm sure!

lol
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#605 May 16, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>Even if the U.S. drastically reduced CO2 emissions, crippling our economy, China and other countries that don't give a "tinkers damn" about the environment
Again, your latest spray of ignorance belies your earlier, absurd post that you "don't have the answers," and that you're "just asking questions."

Climate change deniers and fossil fuel interests are not merely trying to block action in the US, they are trying to block international agreements.

China uses a lot of dirty coal, but has much more aggressive efforts in solar than the US does. And even in some other renewables areas. It's true they have less stringent environmental standards; it is not true they are indifferent. Someone from the Environmental Defense Fund was just on "Charlie Rose" speaking about China's motivations and actions in this area.

You don't know anything. It's pure racism, scientific ignorance, indifference to fact or new information, ideology. That is, when you're not outright lying about "just asking questions" or about something else.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#606 May 16, 2014
mjjcpa wrote:
<quoted text>
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because
That is a Birther / Benghazi caliber distortion. No data were suppressed.

The scientists were concerned with how data showing the rate of increase of warming slowed for a time would be used by deniers.

Anyway, you don't do data. You only do drill baby drill. By the way, remind me, you witlessly claimed not to know the age of the earth. Is the earth more than 10000 years old? Because only the lowest sort of ignoramus would reply, "No, it's not," or, "I don't know if the earth is more than 10000 years old." And that would be you.

snicker
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#607 May 16, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>why are you here then, son???
man made co2 is the driver
To poke fun at the studied ignorance and denial on all matters of the tee baggrz and "religious" kooks and right wing mouthbreathers. I also provide content, as in pointing out the first person on that "list of climate skeptics" is a Creationist who doesn't work in a relevant area and belongs to what I view as a cult - 7th Day. Some skeptic he is....

On your other, failed point: No one disputes the greenhouse gas mechanism.

OTOH, lots of id iots dispute that climate change is human mediated and has severe consequences. And a few laggard scientists in unrelated disciplines might take the same position still. They are a laughing stock in educated circles.

But the IQ is too low to grasp the difference between those two things: The perfectly well known greenhouse gas mechanism versus the ongoing, human caused effects of climate change. That distinction is too "subtle."

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What happened last week? 4 min Krypteia 7
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 8 min Crystal_Clear722 5,152
Who was right? 9 min LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 2
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 11 min Crystal_Clear722 5,428
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 12 min Jacklin 161,036
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 14 min Crystal_Clear722 31,439
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 min DanFromSmithville 159,803
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 46 min Crazy Jae 8,295
motorcycle traveling stories 1 hr LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 374
News SC deputies: 11 cyclists victims in strange rev... 3 hr Mega Monster 3
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 7 hr TALLYHO 8541 40,143
More from around the web