Is Global Warming Real?

Of course! Because as we all know, reality is a matter of individual choice.

 

No it isn't, climate change is.

 

I thought it was funny mate. It's a great piece of photoshopmanship, no doubt. I'm surprised the hard cases haven't chimed in. I though Pat would have taken the piss out of it, but no, he had to come off like a stroppy cow.

Now if you could just find a pic of Cheney and Shrub doing the same, a la Raiders of the Lost Ark, that'd be mint.

 

OK - here goes.

Well, you know, the ice cream on the cone is not melted at all, so obviously the warming demonstrated is not "global".

 

what is real?

 

The boundary between the "street" and the curb is too sharp as well, but a nice l'il pic for sure.

 

It's liberals that mostly believe in AGW and we're pretty sure that a greater majority of them don't have a sense of humor or just don't get it.

BTW temps haven't risen in the last decade and are expected to drop slightly this year. How does that happen if Global Warming is caused by humans?

Wildkow

p.s. It's hard to be the "Doom and Gloom" party when the Doom and Gloom ain't cooperating.

 

I guess you are not in tune with the denail machine and how it is generally conservatives that spew the spun information? So of course more liberals would be talking about AGW being real. "Your" kind are fed misinformation so typical talk about how it is not real. Too much misinformation from the Frank Luntz anti-AGW playbook IMO.

If you knew anything about science you would quickly realize that the majority of biologists and climatologists would be considered fairly liberal. So who is one to believe on this issue, a conservative banker, lawyer, CEO, or a "liberal" scientist who has spent their entire lives studying in the field of climatology, palynology, geology etc.?

 

Whether world climate change is happening or not, whether is caused by humans or not, this video comes up with a compelling idea on why we should do something about it:

edited to change "global warming" to "world climate change", I realized I meant to say that.

 

That was a big part of the Frank Luntz playbook as well. Conservatives and politicians in the Bush camp were never to use the words "Global Warming" as they induced a higher emotional level than the words "global climate change" and thus soothed people into thinking there was a difference in the danger level.

Check out the Denial Machine if you are interested in how this works.

 

I'm still on the fence about it, therefore the change of words. I do believe, however, that we must do what we can to avert disaster, and I have believed that before watching that video.

 

IMO you are taking the right stance. Science is not always right.

 

It's caused by La Nina, a particular recurring pattern of circulation in the Pacific. La Nina cools the atmosphere temporarily by depositing heat into the deep ocean. However La Nina does not remove heat from the Earth; when that particular ocean circulation pattern ends the atmosphere resumes warming. When the current La Nina ends average temperatures will race upward again and set new records. El Ninos in contrast release heat from the deep ocean; what fun we will have when the next El Nino starts. The denier's circulation pattern will flip from "La Nina will save us" back to "It's all El Nino's fault".

 

I find it hard to believe that of all the Green House gases pumped into the atomsphere yearly that the .28% that humans contribute is the cause of Global Warming or Climate Change.

If it is true (Straw that broke the camels back) why haven't the temps risen in the last ten years?

Personally I just wish the administration would grow some cajones and take all the wasted money ($4billion) each year studying AGW and spend it on battery research and get us a decent electric vehicle. BINGO two birds one stone, problem solved!

Can anyone argue that point?

Forget it F8L you just want to argue. LOL!

Wildkow

 

Well, the global ecosystem is complicated, and there are natural systems which will absorb the carbon dioxide. The ocean is a big one. Excess CO2 in sea water reacts with dissolved calcium, and they both settle to the sea bottom. Where it will eventually become limestone.

That buffering ability will handle any excess carbon being put into the cycle. So that the excess emissions appear to have no effect. However, even with a mere trickle of excess, the buffering ability of the sea will become exhausted. Then the masking of emissions it was doing will stop, and the CO2 will then start building up in the atmosphere.

With the buffering depleted, CO2 emissions may even start to climb. A part of the CO2 in the water converts to carbonic acid. The acid will dissolve that previously precipitated calcium and carbon, and release the carbon back into the air.