Global Warming *snicker

doogie

Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html#ixzz4RVJcZfev
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

greenblood

It's actually called climate change, and it can also cause a decrease in temperature. Everybody knows that.

UWhuskytskeet

So six months of cooling that coincides with the end of a natural warming period somehow negates decades of empirical evidence? I can't tell if this is blatant anti-intellectualism or just science illiteracy. Abundance?

doogie

What is this empirical evidence you allude to? Mann's hockey stick?

UWhuskytskeet

Knock yourself out.

Simply put, the atmosphere hasn't had this much CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The world consumes 96 million barrels of oil a day, most of which is burned off as CO2.

I don't get how not fucking with the environment has suddenly become politicized. I can at least understand not agreeing with how regulations are applied, but to deny basic scientific facts is just bizarre.

Fenderbender123

NASA is your source?

HoustonHusky

Fenderbender123 said:

NASA is your source?

NASA's ever-changing historical numbers?

GrundleStiltzkin

HoustonHusky said:

Fenderbender123 said:

NASA is your source?

NASA's ever-changing historical numbers?

To be fair to NASA, one of their foremost goals since 2009 has been reaching out to the Muslim world.

Southerndawg

UWhuskytskeet said:

Knock yourself out.

Simply put, the atmosphere hasn't had this much CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The world consumes 96 million barrels of oil a day, most of which is burned off as CO2.

I don't get how not fucking with the environment has suddenly become politicized. I can at least understand not agreeing with how regulations are applied, but to deny basic scientific facts is just bizarre.

Technically, oil is not "burned off" as CO2. It's relationship to oil is that of a product of combustion. Carbon is released from hydrocarbon based fuels as they are oxidized (with atmospheric oxygen) during combustion resulting in several compounds, among them, H20, NOx, CO and CO2. CO is highly toxic and NOx reacts with ultraviolet radiation to form smog. Vehicles use catalytic converters to, among other things, bond additional O with CO compounds to form relatively harmless CO2, and break up NOx into harmless O2 and N. Some pretty evil things taking place there, to be sure.

C02 is a trace gas, making up roughly 0.0085% and 0.0325% of the atmosphere depending on the time of day and latitude the measurement is taken. It is a greenhouse gas, but it is weak and far less prevalent than the far more dangerous di-hydrogen oxygen vapor that also forms as a product of combustion. Perhaps you should focus on banning those terrible effluents.

doogie

GrundleStiltzkin said:

HoustonHusky said:

Fenderbender123 said:

NASA is your source?

NASA's ever-changing historical numbers?

To be fair to NASA, one of their foremost goals since 2009 has been reaching out to the Muslim world.

and NASA never had to play a RANKED Washington State

greenblood

I'll argue that atomic bomb testing has caused more climate disruption than any fossil fuel consumption. Now that we've stop doing that, I really don't give shit about anything else climate related anymore.

dhdawg

UWhuskytskeet said:

Knock yourself out.

Simply put, the atmosphere hasn't had this much CO2 for hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The world consumes 96 million barrels of oil a day, most of which is burned off as CO2.

I don't get how not fucking with the environment has suddenly become politicized. I can at least understand not agreeing with how regulations are applied, but to deny basic scientific facts is just bizarre.

NASA is a corrupt organization pushing an agenda. Not in any way like all those climate change denying politicians who couldn't care less about helping the fossil fuels industry after it gave them millions of dollars to get them elected

doogie

What is the agenda Obama's NASA is pushing, in your opinion?

CuntWaffle

Maybe some of you should stop driving cars and using electricity to help this situation out since you care so deeply?

greenblood

CuntWaffle said:

Maybe some of you should stop driving cars and using electricity to help this situation out since you care so deeply?

But wait...

What about back east where electricity is powered 80% by nuclear and coal power plants?

GrundleStiltzkin

I can only hope our country comes to its senses and invests in clean wood chip power.

greenblood

GrundleStiltzkin said:

I can only hope our country comes to its senses and invests in clean wood chip power.

Water...

Fuck off California

RaceBannon

In California we have solved climate change by paying for our grocery bags. The poor clerk was crestfallen when my wife told her that the store got 40% and the State the rest.

"I thought the environment got the money?"

Alexis

Hurts Trump, IMO

UWhuskytskeet

greenblood said:

CuntWaffle said:

Maybe some of you should stop driving cars and using electricity to help this situation out since you care so deeply?

But wait...

What about back east where electricity is powered 80% by nuclear and coal power plants?

What's wrong with nuclear?

greenblood

UWhuskytskeet said:

greenblood said:

CuntWaffle said:

Maybe some of you should stop driving cars and using electricity to help this situation out since you care so deeply?

But wait...

What about back east where electricity is powered 80% by nuclear and coal power plants?

What's wrong with nuclear?