^ thisFunk N. Furter wrote:I am a child
AGW scientific consensus
-
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm
-
- Posts: 10586
- Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:57 pm
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm
Re: AGW scientific consensus
That's all well and good, but it doesn't explain 15 years of flat temperatures.
-
- Posts: 11421
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: AGW scientific consensus
You guys can argue about it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that if global warming has the sort of catastrophic effect scientists talk about it's not going to be stopped by our fat lazy asses, and it will only be dealt with after the fact.
Mankind has never learned through reason or science, but by fucking up horribly and paying the price.
Remember WWI "The war to end all wars!"??
Mankind has never learned through reason or science, but by fucking up horribly and paying the price.
Remember WWI "The war to end all wars!"??
-
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:22 am
- Contact:
Re: AGW scientific consensus
I love honeybees.
Last edited by SuburbanThug on Wed May 29, 2013 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm
Re: AGW scientific consensus
Well it's good that we've moved so quickly away from the science and on to subby's personal feelings regarding bees.
-
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm
Re: AGW scientific consensus
Interesting this. I'm well aware of the distinction between surface and deep ocean temperatures, but it would seem odd to me that our current 15 years of no warming should be attributed to winds alone.Funk N. Furter wrote:I posted about it earlier. The deep oceans have warmed. The upper ocean has lost heat relatively, probably due to increased winds.
You have to bear in mind that 1998 was an exceptionally hot year due to the el nino
-
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm
Re: AGW scientific consensus
You'd have thought this would have been taken into account in the models...
-
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:26 pm
Re: AGW scientific consensus
Global warming isnt a real problem. Say in a hundred years the mean tempurature has raised a 10 degrees celcius, which is a lot, then there will be still plenty of space in the north. (Russia, Scandinavia, Scotland, Greenland, Canada). So our cultures will have to move there. An additional benefit will be that ships can travel more easily when the icecap has melted, to ship oil from Russia or Alaska for example.
For the Aussies and the Latin American continent it could be a catastrophe though.
And the polar bears we put in a park, together with a huge statue of Brigitte Bardot.
For the Aussies and the Latin American continent it could be a catastrophe though.
And the polar bears we put in a park, together with a huge statue of Brigitte Bardot.
-
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm
Re: AGW scientific consensus
I would argue that we should. 2'000 years after the birth of Jesus Christ, they still think that eating dirt is a good source of nutrients for pregnant women (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophagy). Beyond a certain point, you just have to let them go.
-
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:06 pm
Re: AGW scientific consensus
The only ones that do it in the Statea originally came from Africa. That was 200 years ago though. I guess there are some things that aren't just cultural.Funk N. Furter wrote:It is a good source of nutrients for pregnant women. Women do it in the USA, not just Africa. In Africa they sell special clay for it, which contains phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, copper, zinc, manganese, and iron. In the west we tend to spend money on vitamin pills insJack McOck wrote:I would argue that we should. 2'000 years after the birth of Jesus Christ, they still think that eating dirt is a good source of nutrients for pregnant women (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophagy). Beyond a certain point, you just have to let them go.
tead.