Translation: Normal humans need tens to hundreds of data points to determine a trend. I can see a pattern in only 2 data points. I am a super genius who'll protect the planet from the humans hell-bent on destroying it (even though the planet has proven itself mightily resilient). I dismiss your viewpoint because of your inability to see and understand the saplings starved for sunlight in the forest. Keep focusing on the forest, though, as I consider it irrelevant to this discussion.
Increased Arctic sea ice volume
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
Translation: Normal humans need tens to hundreds of data points to determine a trend. I can see a pattern in only 2 data points. I am a super genius who'll protect the planet from the humans hell-bent on destroying it (even though the planet has proven itself mightily resilient). I dismiss your viewpoint because of your inability to see and understand the saplings starved for sunlight in the forest. Keep focusing on the forest, though, as I consider it irrelevant to this discussion.
None of this matters anyway. Smarter people than you and I think the danger is real, and going by the news the world's decision makers are beginning to respond. Neither one of us can change any of that, but at least I feel in accord with it.
now you are talking. that is exactly right.
that fact we have not been warming for about 20 years does not mean the warming is over.
it means that the models which were trying to say co2 caused the warming in recent decades ... failed on real time data.
that fact we have not been warming for about 20 years does not mean the warming is over.
it means that the models which were trying to say co2 caused the warming in recent decades ... failed on real time data.
The Freakanomics guys think that the hand-wringing and solutions targeting the transportation and energy industries have very little impact in reducing carbon footprint. Both industries contribute little to the "problem". Consequently, the "solutions" end up having minimal effect. To boot, their research of the research shows that carbon is a very weak/inefficient greenhouse gas. Water vapor has a much greater impact on planetary warming/cooling.
Better to target methane. Ergo, targeting the feedlot industry (i.e cattle and poultry). Everybody going vegan would eliminate something like 70% of the carbon footprint. More bang for the brussel sprout.
Another solution proposed by Intellectual Ventures is shooting a relatively small amount of sulphur into the stratosphere near the poles, giving us an immediate world-wide cooling effect like what happens when a very large volcanic eruption occurs (i.e the Iceland eruption in 1815, Krakatoa in 1883, or Mt Pinatubo in 1991).
But as I've said, global warming, if it's really a problem, is a human-only problem. The phrase was coined by humans to describe an "issue" recognized only by humans that really only affects humans. Compounding the problem is the movement is populated with/popularized by liberals, who hate anything having to do with humans, so they couch it in terms of "saving the planet" because they can't be anti-human while simultaneously wanting to protect & save humans. That would violate their religion. And as any agnotic knows, religious nuts can never admit their religion is wrong even though it obviously is. All religions are like this. Not just the one you dislike.
There is only one solution absolutely 100% guaranteed to work to resolve this "issue" / "problem". Stop making babies! Less babies equals less demand on the entire supply chain - food, water, raw materials for shelter, safety, and consumption -> arable farmland, potable water, wood, rubber, oil, nat gas, coal, gold, silver, iron, aluminum, platinum, other animals/wildlife/sea life for food, chemicals, etc.
The population of all biological systems expand in times of plentiful resources, and contract when the resources are used up. Homo sapiens are no different. We're just doing what we're biologically programmed to do. Planet Earth can handle the gyrations of the human virus population just like it does with all the other biological population gyrations - without breaking a sweat.
A possible "entertaining" solution for the reality TV crowd - round up all the males aged 0-35 in the world, drop them into Africa, secure the border so they can't escape the continent, and tell them to have at it. Worldwide, it's estimated there are 2.2 Billion males aged 0-35 (see http://www.census.gov/population/in... Results &T=10&A=aggregate&RT=0&Y=2015&R=1&C=). Create a large-scale survival test. We'll call it "Survivor - the Lord of Flies Experiment". We know the series finale - everyone dies. Nice. Neat. Tidy. Unless they start porking the female wildlife, and creating nasty new creatures...
We only need 1 male for every 20 fertile women to ensure survival of the species. If we reduce the population by letting all the 0-35 year old males kill each other, then within the 50 years, the population will be back down to manageable levels (i.e 1-2 billion). Of course, in 200 years, they'd have to do the experiment all over again.
Hehe, excellent post. Lots of good stuff in there.
Oh, no warming for twenty years. Do you ever tire of lying? Is it like some inherent trait of lawyers or something? LOL
Or maybe it's the typical right winger stupidity...
Perhaps the best indicator of the stupidity of the right wing (and piezoe) is their denial and poor comprehension of the science of AGW.
^It's like vomit in a post. All over the place, disgusting and done by staggering drunk fools.
What I want to know is did you ever think to think? Maybe look at a chart of Arctic ice volume? Do the facts even matter to you. Just how stupid are you.
