How many Prius owners believe in Global Warming theory?

You would be so much more entertaining if you would update your conspiracy theories to 2010.

The Great Sunspot Shortage was much briefer than 11 years, and ended a year ago.

While you may believe that the sunspot pictures transmitted by the space-based solar observatories -- SoHo, Stereo A & B, and Solar Dynamics Observatory -- are faked by the Bildebergers / Rothschilds / CFR / Trilateral Commission / Zionist One-World Government, etc., recent sunspots have been so large that they are visible without telescopes. Ordinary people are seeing them with ordinary telephoto lenses.

Come on, I know you can do better to make these claims resemble the first layer of evidence.

 

Where do you get your information that the world is in a cooling trend? I thought cooling ended in the 70s:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

Temperature seems to be going up steadily by .22 F every decade.

 

C3: U.S. Cooling Continues At -8.3F/Century Rate: IPCC/NASA's Climate Model Warming Predictions Still Wrong


Source here.

 

"the case for AGW is significantly weakened by this type of empirical evidence. Just as a reminder, the climate models predicted "global" warming, not partial-global warming, as seems to be the present situation."

100% completely and infuriatingly wrong. "Global Warming" was used a long while ago as a simplified term so people could understand. It is almost unanimously called "Global Climate Change" now, and the whole point is some places get colder, some get hotter, some get wetter, and some get dryer.

That alone pretty much makes that source as good as Fox News.

 

LOL! Are you seriously trying to equate weather in the USA to global climate change?

Never mind choosing to start your trendline from 1998 - the warmest year on record in the USA? You start your trendline from any other year and your "cooling trend" completely falls apart.

 

Well even if we were to use 1998 as a basis, there's no cooling trend as indicated by this article. They indicate that 2010 was the "second" coolest year...which that in itself indicates that all other years from 1999-2009 were on a warming trend (which if we use the EPA figures, 2005 was the warmest). Anyways, this shows you've got to use at least a decade to form any opinion about climate trends. And this quote, "Of course, this U.S. cooling trend will eventually revert to a warming trend, but the current decade-long plus global cooling trend has not yet abated." pretty much seals the source for not being an earth shatering source hellbent against global warming. Of course that sentence pretty much makes the next paragraph moot too.

 

Oh Boy! A "my science is better because your science sucks!" rebuttal.

Pass.

BTW last time I checked the CONUS was a significant part of the globe and as the article said, which was conveniently left out, was that if the rest of the world had the sophisticated array of temperature gathering instruments as the CONUS it would more than likely show the same, time will tell. :wave:

 

Good for you for regurgitating a talking point from the article you linked! Of course even if the rest of the globe had as much sophisticated gathering instruments, I think that would only solidify the averages found with the EPA. Even though I highly doubt the CONUS was left out in the EPA/IPCC findings, the CONUS is nowhere near the majority of the globe. And it's not about who has the "best science": it's who can think analytically to be able to debunk editorials....since they do not have a scientific basis, but a political agenda instead.:wave:

 

Does anybody know what the words "resource" or "depleted" mean yet?

Crickets.

 

resource: to rise or lift upwards
deplete: to un-fill or empty out

So depleted resources, would be anything that was emptied and then lifted up?

 

Resource: Something to be recklessly consumed.

Depleted: Not yet fully exploited.

Tom

 

There we go! Now we're getting somewhere.

 

Resource; "buy one, get one free"

Depleted; "exclusive offer" Blue Whale Meat from one of the 14 remaining survivors; $100 a pound!!

 

Hmm. Well, with that, I guess we're all wrapped up here.

 

Jumping in here after having read about six of the posts in this thread...

Global warming is caused by a reduction in the number of pirates world-wide. It says so in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so I know it's true and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. But we should still stop burning fossil fuel because it stinks. Compared to burning fossil fuel, horse manure is a rose. Though I admit to having more experience with cow manure than horse manure, from my years working on a dairy farm and having to shovel out the milk parlor from time to time. But horse manure is easier to control than fossil fuel pollution: Just put diapers on the horses and compost the manure. Hey, if we composted some of the posts in this thread we could grow one heck of a garden.

On the other hand, in my adopted home state of North Dakota, we welcome global warming. :rockon:

 

Resource,, an endless supply of morons!

Depletion,,, the energy required to keep these morons from completely obfuscating the facts of the universe.

(See also flat earthers!)

 

In the energy business:

resource: oil in the ground, total. Core the reservoir, how much oil per cubic foot of sample...times... estimated volume of the reservoir.

reserve: how much of a reservoir can be produced (pumped up) at the prevailing price.

You may own 10,000,000 bbl of resources, but only 2,000,000 bbl are reserves since that's what can be produced at today's price and with today's technology to get it out.

depleted: percentage of the reserves that have been produced. In the above case, if you pump out 1,000,000 bbl, you are 50% depleted.

BTW, reserves average (very roughly) about 30% of resources. So, for every bbl of oil ever produced, there are at least 2 more down there waiting for higher prices and/or better technology to get 'em out.

 

This is commonly used to show that we have plenty of reserve left but the estimate usually fails to include our exponential increase in use which, in a relatively short period of time, dwarfs our entire historic use of the substance.

 

The more depleted a well becomes, the greater the energy (ussually oil) required to get the oil out. Hence, at a certain point, you started using as much energy as you actually recover. It's called EROI (energy return on investment). It's no longer 1:100 like it used to be. These days we are producing oil from tar sands with an EROI that's barely worth the effort. We're better off using the energy put into it directly.

It's past time for us to start diversifying our energy sources.

 

That sounds suspiciously like Fuel Cell vehicles!