-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Beadle & Grimm Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
bullsh*t
Is the point of this spin that we shouldn’t start reducing emissions till we are actually running out of oxygen?
That and I’m going to throw the bullshit flag on what exactly is defined by “Naturally Occuring.” Combustion is naturally ocurring and produces CO2…
This is a great chart if you are any or all of the following:
teabagger, birther, anti-evolutionist, fox news aficionado, petroleum
industry executive, right wing idiot who likes to pick fights on
subjects he knows nothing about.
Nice ad hominem, skat1140. Anything of substance you’d like to contribute? No? Just “everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a stupid poopy head”?
I heard Obama made this on a Mac and thousands of hippies spontaneously woke up and started actually doing something with their lives other than acting like whining cuntrags.
skat1140…without googling…debunk this. I didn’t think so, faggot.
Is debunking this without google an open challenge? Because the flaw is really simple. The chart implies that a small change (.117%) in carbon dioxide can only result in a small change in climate. This assumes that everything is a linear relation, which is ridiculous and false. Anybody who has take a chemistry class should know this.
Honestly, there are valid reasons to be sceptical about global warming. Saying that man-made carbon dioxide is a small part of the atmosphere is not one of them.
HA HA HA! Owned.
Exactly. If someone told you that your coffee was “only 1/100 of 1% hydrogen cyanide”, you better not drink it.
No, you, and the other idiots here, fail to grasp the chart. I’ll explain it for you. If you had a cup off coffee that had 2% creamer and 1% sweetener, and of the 1% sweetener you had 4% sugar, and of the 4% sugar .117% was hydrogen cyanide, could drink until you puked and never get a leathal dose considering a leathal dose of HCN is 10 ppm.
I don’t watch Fox, I’m not a Republican, and I’m could care less about what anyone is willing to spend their money foolishly on, or who they want to have them lead them out of their own self-guilt. I have however, read endless amounts of research on this topic and as the chart suggests, the likelyhood of humans causing a global climate change are absurd.
Of course, you won’t take my word for it so I suggest you read the book “Heaven and Earth” which is was written by a geologists and goes into excruciating details on the scientific data debunking human caused climate change.
And of course, you most likely will not because it is much easier to be lazy and accuse those that don’t think like you do of being a right winged idiot, Rush Limbaugh ass lick, or Fox-a-bot. Needless to say, you do this while you watch CNN, lick Olberman’s ass, and bow to the Magic Negro.
Excellent use of numbers! You have dispelled the metaphor without at all addressing the main point. The smallness of the contribution of human global warming does not at all imply that it is unimportant. Your geologists likely failed to mention, as many do, the importance of the “butterfly effect”, feedback loops, and nonlinear dynamics to climate, as has been known for many, many years. As others have said, the noncontribution amount remains constant, our contribution is rising and has been, and can dramatically unsettle things, causing irrevocable feedback loops leading to catastrophic change. What did your geologists, in their one book that amazingly dispels years of extremely modernized and intricate data on climate change and near-universal consensus among environmental scientists, have to say about that?
Take a look at some of the one-star reviews of the book, which are very detailed and verifiable, for why this Ian Pilmer (ONE geologist, not “geologists”) takes bad data, ignores unsupportive evidence, and plays with statistics to serve his own end. I’m not going to claim that the pro-human-hypothesis people don’t do the same, but it certainly doesn’t make me want to believe this guy anymore either.
This chart doesn’t even show a “smallness of the contribution of human global warming”. All it shows is a smallness of the contribution of the human contribution to green house gases. It proves nothing except that its creator doesn’t understand how science works.
A book by Plimer? heh. Plimer is a complete joke. How about peer reviewed research by climate scientists instead of a book? Your “endless amounts of research on this topic” are junk.
These kind of charts make me angry and sad. It’s horrible that this image exists. It’s basically poison for the masses. 90% of people with no knowledge on the subject will gobble this up and will stop “believing in global warming”. Or, to be more correct, will get the WRONG opinion on the subject.
isnt there a 912 rally you people need to get to?
oh, and quick, buy more ammo, i hear theyre going to ration it.
So where, exactly, is the chart incorrect? Is there a factual objection to the data, or is the data incorrect, or is the data presented incorrectly? If so, where? We can argue endlessly about the interpretation of the data, but I’d like to know if the data presented is correct or not, and if not, where the errors are.
Data presentation. Naturally occurring CO2 is close to constant, but human activity, small as it is, is increasing the ability of the atmosphere to hold heat energy. Water vapor and methane are in a feedback loop with temperature. Warm air can hold more H2O than cold, so you get more evaporation from the oceans and to a lesser extent, the ground. As tundra regions stay warm longer, they release more methane as organic material rots. More CO2 equals more H2O and more methane, more overall greenhouse gases, driving us towards an overall warmer planet.
Note the lack of resource quotations…. In light of that… I’ll equate this to a big pile of shit.
Carbon dioxide (CO2): 383 ppmv (0.0383%)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
“naturally occuring” probably referse to breathing, volcanos, cow farts, and CO2 thats released from the ocean when the temperature goes up.
Think of the climate as a really big mathematical function, similar to some of the more complicated functions you ran into in advanced algebra or calculus but much larger, since the global climate is a very big thing. There’s lots of variables and constants, and a variety of outputs, representing all the matter and energy in all their forms all over the globe.
Do you remember any time you did a math problem, but got one little number wrong by a small amount early in your attempt, and that resulted in a solution entirely different from the correct answer? Make that math problem bigger- say, climate-sized big- and your mistake will result in even bigger difference between your answer and the one you would have gotten had you not changed anything. Global-temperature-change sized changes.
But why should we worry if the global temperature changes by one or two degrees? The difference between 0 degrees C and 1 degree C is the difference between ice and water, and will change the relative proportions of fresh- and saltwater, reduce the massive cooling effect of ice on the atmosphere, reduce the amount of sunlight reflected back into space by glaciers, raise ocean levels, and result in all sorts of other unforseen consequences.
If this still doesn’t sink in, you really need to go back to kindergarten and try the whole learning thing all over again.
nice one, jade.
we wont be fooled by you or the other bilderbergers!
learn about the real 9/11!
HEAR OUR VOICE!
HEAR OUR VOICE!
See this? Its a copy of the U.S.S. Constitution!
And theres no climate change or health care plan in it!
HEAR OUR VOICE!
HERE OUR VOICE!
wow… the shear science is overwhelming.
everything I thought I knew from college and years of employment is a lie.
THANK YOU PIE CHART!!
You’ve opened my eyes.
And you’re a useful idiot.
You are all assholes.
As the creator of this chart let me explain its purpose:
First is to create a stir, which reading your comments so far.. it has.
Second is to represent facts in a simple form.
If you call bullshit on the chart then ask yourself the following questions:
Do you understand the chemical and physical processes involved in the climate?
Have you done any research into the matter or have you just believed the so called ‘facts’ that have been fed to you through the media?
Anyone who understands chemistry knows that burning fossil fuels produces more water vapor than it does carbon dioxide, however the amount is negligible.
The main facts portrayed in this chart are that water vapor is the controlling greenhouse gas, and human produced carbon dioxide is a very small fraction of total carbon dioxide.
In fact, had you done your research, you would know that the amount of naturally occurring CO2 varies by a greater amount than the total produced by humans, and the amount of water water vapor varies by an even greater amount. This chart is a representation of the averages.
The idea of a “carbon tax” is absurd, the planet is self regulating, an example of part of the system which regulates the planet: If the temperature increases, more water vapor enters the atmosphere, therefore you get more clouds, the more clouds you have, the more solar energy is reflected off the clouds back into space, and the temperature decreases as a result. This is just one of many systems which you would know about, had you done your research instead of claiming things like: ‘right wing idiot who likes to pick fights on
subjects he knows nothing about.’
Anyone who understands chemistry also knows that carbon dioxide is a gas that transmits visible light, but attempts to retain infrared radiation. Thus a greater amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, whatever the source, will increase the amount of sunlight hitting our planet being converted to heat and retained by our atmosphere. This is so utterly basic a physical fact anyone who disputes it can be laughed out of the discussion.
The fact that burning fossil fuels produces more water vapor than CO2 is not relevant, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. Also simple beyond refute.
‘Negligible’ is a qualifier whose application to this issue is the actual point we are arguing. That the amount of CO2 being contributed by man-made activities is a small part of the whole is not in question. Whether that small part may have serious consequences is what we are arguing.
I would like you to provide source material for your statement that naturally occurring CO2 varies by a greater amount than the total human contribution. Also, I will point out that this variance does not imply that human contribution cannot have a drastic impact on our own future–the global climate has fluctuated wildly in the past, If we someday run into a terrible ecological future which challenges civilization as we know it, and our carbon contribution caused it, the fact that naturally occurring carbon cycles have done so before will be of no comfort.
Clouds are good at reflecting light, but they also retain IR. They are not a good way to combat global temperature increase. Nor is trusting that one force will counterbalance the other no matter what external force is applied. Even the best buffer fails if enough acid is added to the titration.
Face it. Human caused carbon emission is having SOME effect on our world. To deny it would be the height of hubris. Whether it will cause massive die outs and rising ocean levels or just an increase in unpredictable weather is not 100% clear. To use unsupported strawman arguments that misrepresent the meanings of one’s own graphs does nothing to advance the debate. Defending oneself by saying that one isn’t some FOX news or right wing fanatic does not make oneself credible. Your argument is Swiss cheese. Please come up with even a slight bit of convincing argument or source material before trying again. I am so tired of wasting my time.
Your facts are off, bravo, as is your “research.”
Get some peer reviewed research that supports your position before you think that your graph proves diddly/squat.
Yes, cloud formation is important, but it is not predicted to have as much of an effect as you think. It isn’t always as simple as water vapor = clouds = cool down. Water vapor from combustion doesn’t drive cloud formation, but sulfates and nitrates from fossil fuels do. In the 60s and 70s, people saw that pollution from sulfates and nitrates were causing serious environmental problems, plus a short cooling trend from cloud formation. Clean air laws were passed, nitrogen and sulfur was limited, pollution dropped, and temps began to rise again.
China and India are burning fossil fuels without clean air laws, and its showing, not just in pollution, but probably in the current leveling of temperatures. When they get with the program and stop sulfate and nitrate pollution, if they don’t cut carbon, we will have another worldwide temperature spike.
It isn’t about how small the amount of CO2 humans contribute, but the effect it will have as it builds up, something that your graph omits. In 1958, CO2 was 315 ppm by volume and in 2008 CO2 was 385 ppm by volume. Thats a 22% increase, which is not a small change. CO2 is incredibly important to maintaining temperature. Without it, we would have a much colder planet, with oceans frozen over, but too much will be a bad thing as we already are observing.
Is a carbon tax the best way to regulate CO2? I’m not sure, but that wasn’t the point of your failure above.
But hey, what if I’m wrong? We go my way and we become less reliant of foreign oil, cleaner air and a far more efficient economy. But if you are wrong…
The same fucking cuntbags screaming about global warming were screaming about global cooling in the 70’s. Which is it? Are we warming up or cooling down? Can we seriously say for sure what’s going on after roughly 100 years of modern science trying to get a grip on what a multi billion year old planet is doing?
We all have to kill ourselves. Soon. It’s the only way to be sure we don’t cause any more irreparable damage. We all have to promise each other to kill ourselves and our children and stop breeding immediately. You first.
Global cooling was a media circus based on a few researchers making a projection based on a short term trend. It wasn’t a position held by many researchers, but science journalism often focuses on creating memes that sell copy, not accuracy.
And “global warming” is different exactly how?
This I know: It’s fucking cool here. Way cooler than it should be before labor day. And every summer for the past ten years has been way cooler than it was when I was a kid.
Also, just because someone says its cool to believe something doesn’t mean that its true. Just trendy.
I count one argument from ignorance, one from anecdote, and one from association. Good job!
I read a good one the other day:
Stop trying to save the planet, the planets doing fine, it’s the people that are fucked up.
Oh and for the record, I’m an evolution, I design systems for electronic cars, I’m not even in the US, my IQ is 160, sometimes in my free time I read about Quantum Physics, and I teabag your sister.
I wish you not to take my word for it, but to do your own research, and to not believe anything unless understanding why.
You do realize that this post dropped your credibility about tenfold, right? Go back and read it. Your IQ is 160, yet you write like this? “I’m an evolution.”{?} Okay, buddy…
…seriously, try getting over yourself and go out there and start trying to make a contribution to society in some meaningful way. Doesn’t have to be big. Doesn’t have to utilize that massive intellect you’re obviously hiding away just for your own purposes. Just stop trying to pretend the rest of the world is losers and you’re the only one who really gets it. That’s the mindset reserved for 18 year olds and emotionally 18 year olds. I don’t expect any of this to get through, but then again, I accepted the thrown glove of someone trying to pick a fight on the internet, so maybe I haven’t learned my lesson either. Maybe if both of us agree to grow up and stop trying to prove our awesomeness by verbally sparring with each other on a frickin’ cool-picture-blog and actually contribute to society, we’d all be for the better. Thing is, I don’t expect this change will ever happen to you, and that makes me sad.
HAR HAR HAR HAR! I’m glad you are an evolution, and congrats on your IQ. That and a dollar will get you a hamburger at McD’s. It doesn’t make you an authority or expert, and it doesn’t prevent you from being incorrect.
Har Har, flame war FTW… even geniuses make typos.
and you really think the naturally occurring CO2 level is constant… you believe exactly the same amount of forest burns and number of volcanoes erupt every year?
If I cared enough, I’d do a similar graph of the content of Michael Jackson’s blood when he died, where the % of drugs would be similarly small.
Instead, I’ll just lol.