Just wanted to remind you that al gore is giving a global warming speech today in Chicago!!!
Check the temps!!!
Record lows!!!
Thought you might laugh.
As I always say, global warming is like religion, I don’t know and neither do you.
JeffR[/quote]
Funny point!!
Its seeming to fall on party lines though: conservatives believe that we are NOT powerful enough to have caused damage enough to change climate.
:Liberals believe we are the source of ALL the global warming…(solar warming, end of the Ice Age hundreds of years ago be damned).
Should we be environment friendly? Sure. Create less pollution with cleaner burning energy sources? Of course.
Egotistical enough to think that we are big enough to affect the whole earth because we like electricity and like our autos? and that we have this all figured it out, not only with the correct diagnosis but also the cure?
Absolutely INSANE and the height of human conceit and arrogance!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Its a religion. Since lots of folks don’t believe in God any longer, and humans have a wired in need to worship something, the environmentalist whackos have latched onto the Mother Earth concept. The Great Meltdown is the equivalent of the Apocalypse, with Hillary Clinton as the Whore of Babylon.[/quote]
You’re not allowed in the discussion until the tab wears off, HH.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Until then, I’ll continue believing those pictures of every glacier in the world dissapearing…and the snows of Kilmanjoro will soon be no more.[/quote]
How do you have a picture of something disappearing? I don’t get it. Or is that one of those “Back to the Future” photos where the image fades out because something has been changed in the timeline?
Its seeming to fall on party lines though: conservatives believe that we are NOT powerful enough to have caused damage enough to change climate.
:Liberals believe we are the source of ALL the global warming…(solar warming, end of the Ice Age hundreds of years ago be damned).[/quote]
IMO, liberals tend to want to prove that it’s happening, want to prove that it’s our “fault”, and want to stop it by top-down mandates, whereas conservatives are more split between outright denial and an “if it’s happening and if we can do anything, we should determine the best way to proceed and then do so” mentality.
Until then, I’ll continue believing those pictures of every glacier in the world dissapearing…and the snows of Kilmanjoro will soon be no more.[/quote]
Not even close to every glacier in the world is shrinking. Even a crude search can find that most of the southern polar region is growing colder and the ice sheets are thickening, but for some reason you only ever here about Greenland and the polar bears.
“A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”
“Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.”
[quote]yorik wrote:
If CO2 is the problem, isn’t the best solution simply to grow more plants? Plants consume CO2 and generate oxygen.
We should make it illegal to tear down forests for development in one spot without planting trees in another spot.
Better yet, let’s give tax breaks to developers who can develop land without reducing the net photosynthesis in the area by more than 85%. Then the developer can choose the economic benefits of the tax breaks vs. reduced costs of development by razing the land.
For that matter, why don’t the environmentalists all ban together and buy up the rain forests and call it oxygen generation farms? Then the Brazilians can make a profit simply by having and caring for the rain forest.[/quote]
Because its more profitable to sell the wood, and clear the land for farming.
And how do you make a profit? The oxygen simply goes into the air and is free for anyone to breathe or use in their car.
Cant make a profit out of that. Which is why people dont save the rainforest. Morally and ethically it would be the right thing to do. It would also be a good thing to preserve it so future generations can see what a forest looks like with real animals but it doesnt put cash in the pocket in the short term.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
See my post about Environmentalism as a religion. You are a ‘Fundie’.
[/quote]
Oxford dictionary definition (theistic):
“1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship.”
Yeah. Environmentalist is exactly like an organized (or even individual) religion.
It says so in oxford dictionary. Look. The last line. ?4 Environmentalism is a religion because HeadHunter said so.?
Yeah. They cut it out of the published definition. But I put it right back where it belongs.
"Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information."
Notice in the chart I have displayed. The measurements are the pink bars. The line of best fit is the blue line. It is the overall shape of the measurements.
The deviations are the measurements that are above or below the line. They can take these differences and make a graph out of them.
That is what you see in the chart from the 1930’s. It is the [vertical] differences from the overall line that fits through all the measurements.
You cant make a judgment about the info here.
If anyone has any questions or is confused about this statistical transformation I will do my best to explain more clearly.
[quote]yorik wrote:
But doesn’t farming simply replace one set of plants with another? Net change in photosynthesis should be nearly zero then.
[/quote]
No. You cannot compare the photosynthesis power of a tree with a tomato plant.
The tree captures a hell of alot more light energy and that is what drives photosynthesis. Light + CO2 + H20 → O2 + Lots of Hydrocarbons.
With CO2 and H20 being extremely abundant, the only thing that is limiting how much and how fast it can photosynthesize is how much light the plant can capture.
Fun Fact: Greener plants photosynthesize more. Because they have more Chlorophyll (its green). Chlorophyll is where the photosynthesis happens.
[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
Here is a chart of what I mean. Notice how it goes into the negatives and positives?
Yeah. Thats because some measurements are below the overall trend and some are above.
This shows you exactly how much.[/quote]
Good to see you learned how to plot residuals at some point in your life. Too bad that’s not what NASA’s graph shows.
The units along the y-axis are millions of square kilometers and the x-axis is years. The Arctic’s line trends down, Antarctica’s line trends up. The residuals just mean you’re less sure of how well that line fits your data or how biased your line is from the data.
Do you really think you’re the only one on here to have ever taken a statistics course or look at scientific data? Who are you educating?
