Higher highs overwhelms Lower Low recorded temperatures, case for global warming

Quote from trendlover:

Adapt would be do nothing (like no warning for storms) then see who survive.
Prepare is to observe (satelite image) then do what is possible to have the most survive.

If people can take away some of the cause of the warming, they should.
More...
Thanks for your concern but:if it gets too warm for me I'll just move or turn up the ac if it's okay with you.


Besides you have a strange definition of adapt, note it's a verb which implies action.


Main Entry: adapt
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈdapt, a-\
Function: verb
Etymology: French or Latin; French adapter, from Latin adaptare, from ad- + aptare to fit, from aptus apt, fit
Date: 15th century

transitive verb : to make fit (as for a specific or new use or situation) often by modificationintransitive verb
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet !

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.


Read for yourself!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece


:D
More...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change"

Yes killthesunshine, moderation is good.:D
 
Quote from Ricter:

Long period. You must be an investor, buy and hold, huh?

Why not use a chart that includes our lava-ball past, or our burnt cinder future?
More...


In Earth's history do you really consider 420,000 years a long time?
 
Quote from drjekyllus:
from Ricter:

Long period. You must be an investor, buy and hold, huh?

Why not use a chart that includes our lava-ball past, or our burnt cinder future?
More...
In Earth's history do you really consider 420,000 years a long time?
More...

Here's the long term view:

the Sun moves through its main sequence phase, it's slowly using up more and more of the hydrogen at its core. This is actually causing the Sun to become more luminous.

In 1.1 billion years from now, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is today. This extra energy will cause a moist greenhouse effect. But the Earth's atmosphere will dry out as all the water vapor is lost to space, never to return.

In about 3.5 billion years from now, the Sun will be 40% brighter than it is today. It will be so hot that the oceans will boil and the water vapor lost to space. The ice caps will permanently melt, and snow will be ancient history. Eventually temperatures will get so hot that the oceans will boil, and life will be unable to survive on the surface of the Earth. The Earth will resemble dry hot Venus.

In about 6 billion years, the Sun's core will run out of hydrogen. When this happens, the inert helium ash built up in the core will become unstable and collapse under its own weight. This will cause the core to heat up and get denser. The Sun will grow in size and enter the red giant phase of its evolution. The expanding Sun will consume the orbits of Mercury and Venus, and probably gobble up the Earth as well.
More...
http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/the-sun/the-suns-future/

So you AGW fools are barking up the wrong tree.
 
Quote from Index piker:


So you AGW fools are barking up the wrong tree.
More...

"In 1.1 billion years from now, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is today"

Who's the fool here then? Or at the very least severely lacking in the numeracy department.

A 10% increase in solar radiation over 1.1 billion years would be an increase of ~0.0000001% (assuming simple linear growth) per decade, really is not in the same league as 0.2C change in mean global temperature per decade due to AGW as (conservatively) forecast by IPCC.

The natural history of main sequence stars is rather well known and has been for decades. It is elementary astronomy. You think that scientists researching climate are not aware of these things, and it's taken your, hmmm ..... diligent, research with Google to shine some light, so to speak, on the problem?
 
Quote from dcraig:


A 10% increase in solar radiation over 1.1 billion years would be an increase of ~0.0000001% (assuming simple linear growth) per decade, really is not in the same league as 0.2C change in mean global temperature per decade due to AGW as (conservatively) forecast by IPCC.

The natural history of main sequence stars is rather well known and has been for decades. It is elementary astronomy. You think that scientists researching climate are not aware of these things, and it's taken your, hmmm ..... diligent, research with Google to shine some light, so to speak, on the problem?
More...

Yes I certainly do think the IPCC is just that dumb.
I think they are just politicizing a non-problem for extortion purposes.

However if the IPCC are correct in their predictions , I still just do not care.
Their hysteria does not alarm me anymore than the work of Thomas Malthus or that nutcase Paul Ehrlich.

Furthermore I don't find the concept of AGW even if accurate worthty of one thin dime of my net resources..

IOW: Bring it on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top