# seven stats on climate change



## RealDave (Dec 31, 2019)

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


OMG!!!! say it aint so,,,


----------



## g5000 (Dec 31, 2019)

Maybe after Texas and the Gulf coast get flooded by "once in a century" floods a few more times...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


I bet my savings there is no mention of the earths tilt or its wobble or the fact that it goes through a cyclical cycle over and over. How bout volcanism? Sun spots? Solar flares? Shifts in the magnetic field? Pole flips? Etc...

Did you know the Sahara desert used to be tropical?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...




Now this is funny.........I live in a place that used to have mile high glaciers.....now we don't.  This happened long before man knew what a car was.......

You secular religious fanatics would be funny if you weren't so prone to murdering 10s of millions of people ....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 31, 2019)

g5000 said:


> Maybe after Texas and the Gulf coast get flooded by "once in a century" floods a few more times...




Quick...you better tell your high priests, obama, gore, and all the rest......they are currently buying mansions on the coast........you would think that the high priests of your religion would know better....


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



And nothing will be done to adapt to the changes because people are too busy throwing poop back and forth arguing over the cause.  

This issue should never have been made a political one.


----------



## Circe (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.




Yeah, yeah, Orange Man Bad......


----------



## martybegan (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



Adapting is one thing, what the watermelons want is to use their method of government as the only way to "save" us.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...




And who made it a political one?  The left wing socialists who saw it as a way to take power and money from other people......


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 31, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



I agree.  That is the problem, and of course since they want that the other side has to claim nothing is happening at all.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 31, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



That is what left wing socialists do.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...




No....the "other side" simply claims that man isn't to blame for climate change.......the sun and other factors change the climate, not man.  We are too small and insignificant to do that....


----------



## martybegan (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...



The opposition is far more fragmented. Some say nothing is happening, others say natural variations override any man made changes. Still others say just engineer fixes to whatever changes happen. 

Only one side is making the issue political as policy, the other side makes it political as a reaction.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 31, 2019)

2aguy said:


> No....the "other side" simply claims that man isn't to blame for climate change.......the sun and other factors change the climate, not man.  We are too small and insignificant to do that....



While I agree we are not responsible for it, we are not too small and insignificant to not have an effect at all.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 31, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



And very little gets done to deal with the coming changes.  And they are coming no matter what anyone says.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2019)

Grampa Murked U said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


The stuff it lists are either lies or bogus measurements of global warming, like the number of wild fires in California, which is the result of making it illegal for homeowners to clear brush near their homes,  and the cost of hurricanes, which goes up because the value of real estate in FL goes up every year.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...



Changes like that happen on geological time, not human time. If Engineering needs to be done it will be done, if people need to move they will move.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No....the "other side" simply claims that man isn't to blame for climate change.......the sun and other factors change the climate, not man.  We are too small and insignificant to do that....
> ...




we have local effects.......put a lot of people in one place and they generate smog and pollution....but, freedom and capitalism have helped fix those problems...as our transition from the 1970s pollution to our 2019 cleaner environment shows.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 31, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Thanks, I hadn't bothered to go to the link...knowing that they are using lies like the California wildfires just shows how dishonest they are...it is their policies that create the out of control nature of those fires........


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2019)

g5000 said:


> Maybe after Texas and the Gulf coast get flooded by "once in a century" floods a few more times...



They never had a flood like the one from Hurricane Harvey, moron. That one dropped so much water because it stalled over the same location near a major city for days.  It had nothing to do with the severity of the storm.

Hurricane Harvey - Wikipedia​
_It was the first major hurricane[nb 2] to make landfall in the United States since Wilma in 2005, ending a record 12-year span in which no hurricanes made landfall at the intensity of a major hurricane throughout the country.[3]_​


----------



## g5000 (Dec 31, 2019)

I don't bleev light bulbs and reusable grocery bags will save us.

I believe solar farms and nuclear power will.  Along with hydropower and desalinization.

That is where we should be focusing our planet-saving efforts.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 31, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Changes like that happen on geological time, not human time. If Engineering needs to be done it will be done, if people need to move they will move.



Luckily a there are people not as short sighted as you. 

Many farmers in i work with have seen the changes and have worked to mitigate the damages for as long as possible.   A change in the rain pattern has led to more irrigation and tiling and in the southern regions of my area they are already looking at alternate crops to grow.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 31, 2019)

2aguy said:


> we have local effects.......put a lot of people in one place and they generate smog and pollution....but, freedom and capitalism have helped fix those problems...as our transition from the 1970s pollution to our 2019 cleaner environment shows.....



which ironically we did because science told us that stuff was bad for us.


----------



## xband (Dec 31, 2019)

Seven is the magic number.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 31, 2019)

g5000 said:


> I don't bleev light bulbs and reusable grocery bags will save us.
> 
> I believe solar farms and nuclear power will.  Along with hydropower and desalinization.
> 
> That is where we should be focusing our planet-saving efforts.




And yet why don't they focus on real solutions?  Why is it the "solutions" they want all put us back to the dark ages?   Nuclear power is a real solution...they fight it because it would provide cheap, renewable energy and allow developing countries to become more free and wealthier, needing the control of left wing elites less and less.......

I think solar farms are a dead end......they can't provide anywhere near what we need........I think the solution is out there and just hasn't been discovered yet...but that is what freedom and capitalism are for.....solving the problems of mankind....


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 31, 2019)

2aguy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


There is no doubt we have an impact on our environment but to think we can influence things to the degree the cultists claim is absurd. The earth was here billions of years before us and it will be here billions of years after us.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 31, 2019)

Grampa Murked U said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




And as more countries around the world develop freedom and capitalism.....and get wealthier.....our  living environment will improve simply because rich, free people like nice things.......


----------



## martybegan (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Changes like that happen on geological time, not human time. If Engineering needs to be done it will be done, if people need to move they will move.
> ...



Which could just be caused by changes other than those caused by man. The Great plains used to be a freaking swamp at some point, more suited to rice growing than wheat.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 31, 2019)

Grampa Murked U said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



I wouldn't bet you because you're correct.  Glowarm is the religion to globalists.  They need this to control the masses through taxation.  Funny how little greta sailed all the way over here, to scold the US,......"how dare you.....exorcist anyone?, lol,  on her little rice burner boat, to save the world while china is clogging up the universe with its carbon....................but nary a peep to the communist country.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 31, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Who fucking cares what is causing them....did you not read a damn thing I posted.  My farmers do not give a fuck about the "why" or "who". 

But people like you cannot move past it, which is why those making changes are a tiny percent of the population.


----------



## Nostra (Dec 31, 2019)

Huffpo is well known for their scientific expertise.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...


Repeatedly plowing the same land over and over wrecks the soil. Bet that wasn't listed in the 7 factors either huh?


----------



## OKTexas (Dec 31, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Yep, it's called adapting, just like man has done forever.

.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Dec 31, 2019)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Repeatedly plowing the same land over and over wrecks the soil. Bet that wasn't listed in the 7 factors either huh?



Which is why they rotate crops and do more and more no till farming.  But that has nothing to do with climate change nor would it impact it.  

There is an old saying you should take heed of...Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.


----------



## Richard-H (Dec 31, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Conservatives are both free and welcome to propose policies to thwart climate change.


----------



## WTH_Progs? (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



ILMAO @ "GOT" this decade. HP's authors didn't got English either, they must be indoctrinated.  Probably a foreigner, I didn't read it.

Biden, Gore and them need to get out of their pools to fly in their private planes preaching how dire a situation this really is.  Say, 20 minutes from me ancient trees are under the lake water.  Place was a a volcano and glacier at some point as well.  Man-kind fucked that up too I guess.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 31, 2019)

Richard-H said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...


Man does not thwart mother nature. Not at all how it works. Mother nature thwarts man.


----------



## Richard-H (Dec 31, 2019)

Anybody know what land in the Antarctic costs?

I figure it'd be best to buy now while it cheap....


----------



## Richard-H (Dec 31, 2019)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I guess you missed things like houses, vaccines, waste disposal systems, heating systems, air conditioning systems.....and everything else that we call civilization....


----------



## DustyInfinity (Dec 31, 2019)

Richard-H said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...



Don't know about climate change, but on the environment, quit dumping stuff in waterways.  Whatever the current rules are and how they are enforced, I support them, and wouldn't shed a tear if we upped the push for water quality.  I'd look in to pesticides and herbicides even more.  I'd also push to improve food quality.  All the modified and processed food products are getting South Park level ridiculous.  I guess none of that affects global temp, but it seems nuclear power would be an obvious first step.

When I was a kid in school, I asked my science teacher, if the population is growing significantly, and oxygenating forrests are declining rapidly, isn't that going to create a CO2 problem.  He just laughed at me and said I worried too much, which in fairness, I am a worrier.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2019)

Richard-H said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...


I propose that every liberal send me a check for $5000.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 31, 2019)

2aguy said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't bleev light bulbs and reusable grocery bags will save us.
> ...


Nuclear power is not cheap.  It is heavily subsidized by the government.  Three Mile Island was shut down because it could not compete.
We can reduce emissions now.  Go buy an electric truck & quit being part of the problem.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


The price of power in France is 1/3 the price in Germany, and France's power is 70% from nuclear.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 31, 2019)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Mother Nature is not causing the warming.


----------



## Nostra (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...


^^^^Science denier^^^^


----------



## RealDave (Dec 31, 2019)

Nostra said:


> Huffpo is well known for their scientific expertise.


 Neither are you & your orange buddy.


----------



## Richard-H (Dec 31, 2019)

Everyone that can work from home should work from home.

It would save almost everyone on gas, reduce wear & tear on roadways, stop wasting everyone's time commuting, reduce traffic jams, reduce the need for office space, reduce heating and electrical costs for employers.

Not to mention the reduction in CO2 emissions.


----------



## Richard-H (Dec 31, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Sure, as soon as we raise the minimum wage to $5000/hr.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2019)

Richard-H said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...


Since when did the "climate change" cult put conditions like that on solving global warming?  They want our cash now.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 31, 2019)

Grampa Murked U said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


 Wow, maybe you should call NASA because the scientists there never considered those factors.   Nooooooo.  They are not as smart as you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 31, 2019)

g5000 said:


> Maybe after Texas and the Gulf coast get flooded by "once in a century" floods a few more times...



Well maybe Guno, that is going to happen by the year 2000, Algore said so...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

1988 Rob Reiss asked official Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, whereupon Climate scientist James Hansen issues this prediction, to be fullfilled in 20 years, which is to say, doom by 2008: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’” (prediction for 2006)

June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.” In the summer of 2008 he makes a prediction for the summer of 2008! Careless of him. Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week. The state of the Northwest passage today, in 2014, is roughly the same as it was in 1921. Some years you can sail through, some years you cannot, and most years if you try it, there is a high risk of getting stuck.

January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.” Implying that the warm winters are now going to be typical, a short term implied prediction. Careless of him. Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.

June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect. I heard the exact same prediction last night on the television (in 2014), entire nations disappearing, hordes of eco refugees creating political instability, with the date for doomsday changed from 2000 to 2030.

Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”

Good bye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel, 1 April 2000

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

“Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

“Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004

“Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 August 2006.
Earlier springs and later autumns: climate change sends nature awry

“The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

“Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
February 14, 2004
Global warming forces sale of Scottish winter sports resorts

1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.” Heard the same prediction on television last night, though they were a bit vaguer about the date.

Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”

July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”

October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”

March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”

1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.” I heard on the television last night (2014) this exact same prediction with the date changed from 2010 to 2020

Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”

May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”

Watt’s big list of failed global warming predictions «  Jim's Blog


----------



## RealDave (Dec 31, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


 Since the industrialized nations got us to this point, they set up a fund to help developing nations  so they deveopment would include the greenest options.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



What "issue" goofball goosestepper? The Gaia Cult?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 31, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe after Texas and the Gulf coast get flooded by "once in a century" floods a few more times...
> ...


  The modeling done in the 80's would have assumed no reductions being made.  But reductions have been made & thereby changing the modeling.

This is like going to the doctor & he tells you that if you keep eating like you do, you could have a heart attack in ten years.  You go on a diet, quit eating red meat, lose 50 pounds & in ten year, you go back & the doctor says you have a low risk for a heart attack.  You have a fit & call  him a liar.

You have zero clue how modeling works.


----------



## Circe (Dec 31, 2019)

Golfing Gator said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No....the "other side" simply claims that man isn't to blame for climate change.......the sun and other factors change the climate, not man.  We are too small and insignificant to do that....
> ...



We might, eventually, have an effect on global warming, with the hockey-stick gross overpopulation we are doing right now. Which is why all the illegal immigration everywhere --- into Burma, Europe, Texas, etc. It's the overpopulation and pollution that are the problems, and resource wasting, not the highly dubious Religion of Global Warming. I've been assuming people will catch on that overpopulation is the problem, especially with the strong hint China gave us. But so far, nope.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 31, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



S C I E N C E


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...


What does that have to do with sending me $5000?


----------



## Richard-H (Dec 31, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Another Conservative expecting a free handout!!!!

When will they ever stop!?!?!


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2019)

Richard-H said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



That's what the "climate change" scam is all about, isn't it?  Dumbasses like you shovel money at UN bureaucrats so they can live in opulence and you thereby relieve yourselves of all your irrational guilt.  It will be just as effective to send me the money as it will be to send it to the UN or other climate change opportunists.  I will even send you a certificate for 5 million carbon credits.


----------



## Richard-H (Dec 31, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Sorry, but you won't be getting a handout from me.

Try getting a job, you lazy scum!


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2019)

Richard-H said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Is that the same advice you have for the "climate change" bureaucrats at the U.N.?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 31, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


  That is what you are all about.,  Being a dumbfuck & ignoring the science.


----------



## OKTexas (Dec 31, 2019)

Richard-H said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...




Are you so arrogant as to think anything you or anyone else does can alter the natural evolution of the earth?

.


----------



## OKTexas (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...




So what's your excuse for ignoring scientist that disagree?

.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...


Your actual complaint is that I know plenty about science.  That's how I know your "climate change" hocus-pocus is a scam.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



Too bad kid, you've bought the lie.


----------



## MAGAman (Dec 31, 2019)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


Your TDS is making you look foolish.

MMGW was exposed as a hoax decades before Trump ran for office.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Dec 31, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Conservatives are both free and welcome to propose policies to thwart climate change.


I propose that every liberal send me a check for $5000.[/QUOTE]

Good luck collecting. I don't think there is a liberal here worth 5 cents let alone $5K


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

MAGAman said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


No it was not.

You stupid fucks know nothing about science.

The temperatures are rising.  That has to be clear even to a dumbass like you.

What is causing it?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Shawnee_b said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives are both free and welcome to propose policies to thwart climate change.
> ...



Good luck collecting. I don't think there is a liberal here worth 5 cents let alone $5K[/QUOTE]
 The second dumbass Trumpette to post the same shit.  How many names do you post under?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

JustAGuy1 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


 I has scientists on my side.  You have two fat sassed morons in Trump & Limbaugh.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


 You obviously don't know shit about science else you would not be so duped.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

OKTexas said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 So man has not pumped CO2 into the atmosphere?  You do know we know how much man has added, right?

Lets take all the nuclear weapons on Earth, drill holes & bury them two miles underground & set them off at the same time.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Actually, they have been flat for the last 20 years.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I'm not duped, dumbass.   You are.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



Germany has higher taxation in an effort to force reduction in energy use.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Yes.....they have a history of forcing people to do things......it didn't end well for them or the world........


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You are so fucking duped that you can't tell how duped you are.  An AGW denier, A trump lover you can;'t be more duped than that.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


You claimed nuclear power was more expensive than so-called "green energy."  The example of France shows you are dead wrong.  Your post didn't even try to contradict that fact.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Of course, you fail to post any evidence that I'm duped.  Typical climate change cult member.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

2aguy said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


 
You are naive if you don't think US policies have done that for decades.

Let's cut auto accidents by FORCING people to drive slower.

Lets tax tobacco to FORCE people to smoke less.

But OMG OMG you assfucks are condemning your own children to a more difficult future along with everyone else's children, we should do nothing.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Your posts are proof.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Yes.......let's pretend that the U.S. and Germany have the same history.........

You guys are so funny when you aren't putting people into mass graves.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 1, 2020)

Just one comment on this topic


the liberals say that the way to stop AGW is for humans to stop polluting the air and water, correct?

No one on earth favors pollution, so why do you libs need the unproven link between pollution and climate?

Why isn't it enough to fight against pollution?   99% of humans would join you in that fight.

But its not really about pollution or climate, is it?   Its about finding a way to control how others live, what they eat, what they drive, where they live, what temp they keep their thermostats at, whether they are allowed to reproduce,  how they spend their money, how much money they are allowed to have.  

Because leftists don't think humans are smart enough to make their own life decisions, and that only some all knowing elites at the top of government are smart enough to tell you how to live.

Rand and Orwell wrote about it years ago and they accurately foresaw the future---------------unless those of us who can still think and reason stop the foolishness now.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Do you have a picture of AOC on every wall of your house?   You appear to be as stupid as she is, so its logical that you would worship the dumb little girl.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2020)

Redfish said:


> Just one comment on this topic
> 
> 
> the liberals say that the way to stop AGW is for humans to stop polluting the air and water, correct?
> ...




Exactly....well posted.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2020)

Redfish said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



It is always amazing how many people just want to put on the chain and be enslaved by really dumb people.....


----------



## initforme (Jan 1, 2020)

I agree fighting pollution is something everyone wants. We need more Erin brockovichs out there keeping an eye on corporations that willfully and WANTINGLY pollute because they  think it will cost more to do things properly, when it really won't.  Screw their profits if it comes to even one, one human health issue.   As far as global warming the climate has always changed so I'm a skeptic.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


They prove that you're an idiot.


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...




So tell the class how much co2 mother nature has put in the atmosphere. And no you don't have a clue how much man has contributed. You can estimate it, but you can't accurately measure it.

.


----------



## BWK (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


And Rachel Maddow makes the best case for why they are doing it, and why the Right doesn't care about climate change;   Chris Matthews calls Rachel Maddow’s ‘Blowout’ a college education  A very few grab all the wealth, while millions sacrifice the integrity of the  climate, and the Republican Toad  stool base can't see forest for tree, about how they are getting royally fucked as a result. A revolution is coming. It's inevitable.


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 1, 2020)

BWK said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...




Didn't raunchey madcow just admit what she spews aren't facts?

.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Good luck collecting. I don't think there is a liberal here worth 5 cents let alone $5K


 The second dumbass Trumpette to post the same shit.  How many names do you post under?[/QUOTE]

Just one fucktard. Guess someone else sees the truth same as I do.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

BWK said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


Owlgore got rich telling you to be scared and not use electricity...............all while he bought McMansions and traveled the world on private jets.


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jan 1, 2020)




----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



You're a brainwashed idiot, jackass.





The Sky Is Falling Homer GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Come over here and shovel my snow, you easily brainwashed cowardly bitch.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Muhammed said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



Another stupid fuck who does not know the difference between weather & climate.  You do realize that if the ave global temp rises 4 degrees that every day is just 4 degrees wamer.

I think your turban is too tight.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Nostra said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Gore made his money in internet investments.  Gore never said to not use electricity.  It is not the size of your home but how you power it & where you get your poser.   Traveling to a conference that helps reduce emissions outweighs the emissions of that flight,


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2020)

Golfing Gator said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No....the "other side" simply claims that man isn't to blame for climate change.......the sun and other factors change the climate, not man.  We are too small and insignificant to do that....
> ...


So what? Just as all warm-blooded animals must do in order to survive. we must necessarily warm our environment. We know that because of science. 

Got a problem with that science?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Shawnee_b said:


>


  There are different populations of polar bears.  Some areas they are increasding and some areas are in decline.  The decline in those areas is due to loss of sea ice.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

OKTexas said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



Man's emissions have increased the amount of CO2 which will increase the greenhouse effect.

Your ignorance is showing.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

2aguy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


It isn't amazing how the really dumb people ignore the science


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Actually your complete indoctrination is showing.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Actually it's amazing how the completely indoctrinated only believe the "science" they agree with.


----------



## cutter (Jan 1, 2020)

While you're reading the huff post have another big glass of  kool aid.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



Another far left science denier acting as their rich white far left masters command them to do so!


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



"Every day is 4 degrees warmer"????????????????????

That means by election time we will be about 1200 degrees hotter.  I hope my A/C can keep up.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Sources for Owlgore's wealth:

Sold TV station to Al Jazeera: $70-100 MILLION in his pocket
Mineral leases (that's oil and gas to you window lickers)
$175,00 per speech telling you not to live the way he does.
Hedge funds....
Investment firms....

Along with the sweetheart no-show deals he got from tech companies due to his name.

The making of a businessman: How Al Gore got rich


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

initforme said:


> I agree fighting pollution is something everyone wants. We need more Erin brockovichs out there keeping an eye on corporations that willfully and WANTINGLY pollute because they  think it will cost more to do things properly, when it really won't.  Screw their profits if it comes to even one, one human health issue.   As far as global warming the climate has always changed so I'm a skeptic.


Although I agree with your polluting statements, I don't get why you can't get AGW.

Out Atmosphere is like an ocean.  The industrial revolution started more industrial pollution of that ocean by emissions of pollutants  & greenhouse gases.  

No different than a factory dumping pollutants into our waterways.  Like phosphates. This pollution increases the amount of phosphates that enter these systems naturally & create dead places in the Gulf or other areas where rivers empty into bodies of waters like the Chesapeake Bay.   

It is the same process.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Nostra said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...



Investments outside of his climate change efforts. 

The network he co founded  was not about climate.  

Mineral leases have nothing to do with climate

Gore has invested in green initiatives put “every penny” he has made from these green investments into the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection, which campaigns for solutions to climate change.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Nostra said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


 
I did not say every day gets 4 degrees warmer you stupid ignorant fuck.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...





> that every day is just 4 degrees wamer.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 1, 2020)

Here are the facts to Trump your feelings:


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Redfish said:


> Just one comment on this topic
> 
> 
> the liberals say that the way to stop AGW is for humans to stop polluting the air and water, correct?
> ...



Nope.  It is to reduce emissions.  Clea air & water are a different type of pollution.
& you cheer when Trump cuts regulations.  What regulations do you think he is cutting?  He is allowing for dirtier air & more polluted water.  You will still vote for him.  So you support these things.

Quit lying & pretending you give a shit out the environmenmt & about our children's future


----------



## Markle (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nuclear power is not cheap. It is heavily subsidized by the government. Three Mile Island was shut down because it could not compete.
> We can reduce emissions now. Go buy an electric truck & quit being part of the problem.



Solar and wind are NOT subsidized by taxpayers?  Who knew?

Three Mile Island was shut down because of the accident, not because it could not compete.

"Go buy an electric truck"?


----------



## Markle (Jan 1, 2020)

Richard-H said:


> Everyone that can work from home should work from home.
> 
> It would save almost everyone on gas, reduce wear & tear on roadways, stop wasting everyone's time commuting, reduce traffic jams, reduce the need for office space, reduce heating and electrical costs for employers.
> 
> Not to mention the reduction in CO2 emissions.


----------



## Markle (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> He is allowing for dirtier air & more polluted water.



You must have forgotten to include your reliable source and working link.  Would you please add those here?


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > I agree fighting pollution is something everyone wants. We need more Erin brockovichs out there keeping an eye on corporations that willfully and WANTINGLY pollute because they  think it will cost more to do things properly, when it really won't.  Screw their profits if it comes to even one, one human health issue.   As far as global warming the climate has always changed so I'm a skeptic.
> ...


Why don't you just kill yourself in order to stop warming the environment, bitch?


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Really, every wood framed house sequesters co2, sometimes for a hundred years or more. In the last 100 years we've built more homes than ever before. The US co2 output has decreased to 2009 levels and is still falling. Perhaps you should be bitching about the real co2 culprits, and that ain't the US. Also why do you commies ignore that co2 has been much higher in the past and water vapor holds much more heat than co2. You only bitch about co2, because there's not a damn thing that can be done about water vapor.

.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Then why don't you quit breathing? You are emitting greenhouse gasses you asshole! 

If you do not immediately commit suicide you are a fucking hypocrite!

Kill yourself now or


----------



## JusticeHammer (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


Stupid is believing your bullshit. No such thing as as man caused catastrophic climate change, period. All a hoax by idiots.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

JustAGuy1 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


 Only the uneducated calls education indoctrination.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2020)

OKTexas said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


We could tax water vapor and give the proceeds to scumbag cult leaders like Al Gore.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

JusticeHammer said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



"Justice Hammer"?  Really.  

Climate is changing.  Man is the primary culprit.  Do nothing & you will see the catastrophic aspects.

We have seen some mighty damaging hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 1, 2020)

Grampa Murked U said:


> I bet my savings there is no mention of the earths tilt or its wobble or the fact that it goes through a cyclical cycle over and over. How bout volcanism? Sun spots? Solar flares? Shifts in the magnetic field? Pole flips? Etc...
> 
> Did you know the Sahara desert used to be tropical?



Science doesn't jive with the climate change narrative so, no.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Muhammed said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...



I have cut my emissions by over 50%.

What have you done.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 1, 2020)

Dumb ass liberals predicted the earth would warm 6 degrees by 2020...it barely warmed 1 degree. They are trying to rig, ahem I mean fix their model now.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I long for the good ol days before we had hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc......


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I have cut my emissions by over 50%. What have you done.



I increased my emissions 50%. I burned 25 gallons of diesel yesterday alone contributing to oil industry jobs and the economy.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I doubled mine, so you are still gonna die.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 1, 2020)

Breaking news from dumb ass liberals...the solution to climate change is tax increases.  What??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


In the words of Greta...lolz. you people are fucking morons


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

OKTexas said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > OKTexas said:
> ...


 US CO2 emissions rose 3.4% in 2018.

More CO2 in the atmosphere enables more water vapor to be held there.

By ranting about emissions per country, we should look at emissions per capita.  Otherwise you stupid fuck run screaming through the streets screaming  "OMG OMG  China!!! OMG OMG India!!!!" because their overall emissions are hiogher than oyrsa.  But they have far more people.

If we look at emissions per capita, the US is number one & over twice that of China.

In Earth's history, CO2 has been higher but what was the planet like compared to now?  

Quit making excuses.  Quit being such dicks.  Your children & grandchildren depend on it.,


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Does Mother Nature do "per capita"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 1, 2020)

g5000 said:


> Maybe after Texas and the Gulf coast get flooded by "once in a century" floods a few more times...



What a ma-roon!! It causes fires too, right?


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> US CO2 emissions rose 3.4% in 2018.



That's because idiot liberal states like California save up years of CO2 fuel, then burn it all at once and the planet can't absorb the sudden release.


----------



## initforme (Jan 1, 2020)

We simply need more Erin brockovichs so companies know that hurting people by dumping wastes(it costs less to properly deal with it) don't feel like cutting corners.  People looking me me are out there waiting to give them bad press.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

*1. The U.S. may warm 6 degrees F from 1990 to 2020*



Video
In 1990, The Washington Post reported in a front page story: "Carbon dioxide is the gas most responsible for predictions that Earth will warm on average by about 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2020."

The outlet further warned: "The United States, because it occupies a large continent in higher latitudes, could warm by as much as 6 degrees Fahrenheit."

2019 IN REVIEW: THE TOP 5 CRAZIEST WEATHER MOMENTS

Thirty years later, 2020 has finally arrived. The Earth has warmed approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit according to NASA. The United States also warmed roughly 1 degree.

Elliott Negin, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, declined to comment.

The latest UN IPCC report, AR5, however, addresses the issue of whether their models were accurate. (The UN predictions differed from the 1990 Washington Post ones, which did not cite its source.)

The latest UN report shows that current temperatures are just within the UN’s old predictions made in 1990, but acknowledges that actual temperatures came in “on the lower end” of expectations.

The UN report partly credits a 1991 volcanic eruption in the Philippines for the lower-than-expected warming, and says the new models account for volcanoes.

The UN now predicts a rise of about 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit from today to the year 2100.

Top 5 most outrageous 2020 doomsday predictions that didn't pan out


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> Breaking news from dumb ass liberals...the solution to climate change is tax increases.  What??



Using the tax code to steer  society has been done for a long time.

It is ad that this needs to be done because you assfucks are too stupid to do it because it is for the greater good.


We tax cigarettes because they are bad for you & drive up healthcare costs. Why" Because despite the known dangers people still do it.  At $8.00 a pack no less.  But fewer people will do it because they can't afford it.

I hope they tax gasoline a dollar or more a gallon.  Then maybe you assfucks would not drive around those jacked up 4x4's spewing black smoke out the single exhaust stack that you think is so cute.
.
When I pull up to the pump & fill my prius for $15.00, I laugh at those paying $70 to fill up their large trucks.

If we need tax increases to accomplish the reductions we need, it is because of dumbasses like you.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


The actual science indicates that my CO2 output helps to green my environment by promoting biodiversity. That makes the world a better place for me and my beloved to live, IMO.

Your ridiculous global warming doomsday cult dogma is that CO2 is going to destroy the fucking planet.

Kill yourself NOW!

Are you too fucking stupid to make a noose, you anti-environment CO2 spewing hypocrite!?


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

*3) By 2020, no glaciers will be left on Mt. Kilimanjaro*



Video
"It's now estimated that by the year 2020, there will be no glaciers of Mt. Kilimanjaro," Christian Lambrechts, an officer at the U.N. Environment Program, told CNN in 2003.

The Associated Press also reported in 2007 that “in 2001, [glaciologist Lonnie] Thompson predicted the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania would disappear within the next 20 years.”

But today, Kilimanjaro's glaciers are still there, according to a 2019 paper in the Journal Ecology and Evolution that includes photos and a new timetable: "most of glaciers on Kilimanjaro ... will most likely disappear within 25 years."

Lonnie Thompson defended his prediction and said it was a bit different from how the AP summarized it. “My prediction was that there would be no glaciers, and that is true,” he told Fox News by phone.

“What we have now are ice bodies. The definition of a glacier is ice in motion. To be ice in motion, you have to have an accumulation zone. There’s been no recent accumulation. There are no glaciers on Kilimanjaro,” he said.

Asked about the study calling the current snow on the mountain “glaciers”, he said: “Sometimes people get caught up in semantics. The fact is all the glaciers in the tropics are disappearing.”


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Breaking news from dumb ass liberals...the solution to climate change is tax increases.  What??
> ...



We get it, you're gay. No man drives a Prius.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Nostra said:


> *1. The U.S. may warm 6 degrees F from 1990 to 2020*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Within the range predicted.  I guess you think nothing changed in out emissions since 1990.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Breaking news from dumb ass liberals...the solution to climate change is tax increases.  What??
> ...


Prius?  Every few weeks I gotta pull out a big screwdriver and pry a few of those out of the grill on my 4 x 4 Diesel truck.  Pretty annoying.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Only the indoctrinated cannot separate indoctrination from education.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

*5. By 2020, "millions will die" from climate change *



Video
Reuters newswire ran this headline in 1997: "'Millions will die' unless climate policies change."

The report said 8 million people would die by 2020, citing a prediction in the Lancet medical journal.

The mass death prediction was clearly way off.

“None of these predictions came true, and aren't even close to coming true,” said Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It's amazing that the public can continue to believe apocalyptic predictions despite a 95 percent decline in weather-related deaths in the last 100 years.”

Some modern studies claim to find mass deaths; the Daily Beast covered a “shock report” that “Climate Change Kills 400,000 a Year,” but Human Progress' Marian Tupy said such estimates are grossly inflated.

“They say climate change causes everything. Some people try to pin the war on Syria on climate change, and then say when all those people die, that's because of climate change. They have a secondary agenda,” Tupy said.

The five predictions highlighted here join a host of similar failed predictions for 2010 and 2015 that Fox News tracked.

Tupy said that an overly negative view of humanity may be one cause of the bad predictions.

“Humans are not a curse upon the planet, but are actually a benefit, because we are problem-solvers. We are creators, not destroyers, on average.”

“When people ask you when was the best time to be alive – the answer is, tomorrow,” he added.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Nostra said:


> *3) By 2020, no glaciers will be left on Mt. Kilimanjaro*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Getting there with about 10% left.    

Kilimanjaro’s glaciers are shrinking in surface area and becoming thinner.
Glacier surface area shrank by 1 percent each year from 1912 to 1953.
It shrank by 2.5 percent each year from 1989 to 2007.
This means glaciers have reduced in area by 85 percent from 1912 to 2000.
From 2000 to 2009, 26 percent of the remaining ice cover melted away.
The glaciers survived a 300-year drought 4,200 years ago, and many researchers agree the recent melting is unique at least within the last 11,700 years
At this rate, the glaciers could disappear completely within a matter of years.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

*2. Oil will effectively run out by 2020*



Video
CNN ran a headline in 2003 titled "World oil and gas 'running out'".

The New York Times reported in 1989 that "untapped pools of domestic oil are finite and dwindling," and that "William Stevens, the president of Exxon U.S.A., said ... by the year 2020 there would not be enough domestic oil left 'to keep me interested.'"

But doomsayers underestimated American ingenuity, and the opposite happened. Both U.S. oil output and U.S. proven oil reserves are dramatically higher now than they were in 1989, thanks to technology allowing deeper oil to be discovered and extracted.

New technology in natural gas ("fracking") also allowed the U.S. to become an energy independent net oil exporter for the first time in 75 years in 2018.

Reached by phone, Phillip Shabecoff, the former New York Times reporter who covered the disappearing oil in 1989, said that the Exxon CEO’s 2020 prediction was off.

“I’m not Nostradamus,” he said, adding, “it’s what the Exxon CEO said. He obviously did not anticipate the new fracking and gas technology. At the time the Permean Basin was being drained dry, so he had every reason to believe we were running out of oil,” Shabecoff said.

Marian Tupy, who tracks metrics like oil production at HumanProgress.org, told Fox News that people routinely underestimate humanity.

“People only think about how can we solve things with current technology. They underestimate human ingenuity,” he said.

Shabecoff said that “unfortunately, human ingenuity is often undermined by political ideology and greed, so we have not been able to bring human ingenuity to bear on urgent questions like climate change.”


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > I agree fighting pollution is something everyone wants. We need more Erin brockovichs out there keeping an eye on corporations that willfully and WANTINGLY pollute because they  think it will cost more to do things properly, when it really won't.  Screw their profits if it comes to even one, one human health issue.   As far as global warming the climate has always changed so I'm a skeptic.
> ...


That's the simpleton's understanding of the issue.  That's for letting everyone know how stupid you are.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > *3) By 2020, no glaciers will be left on Mt. Kilimanjaro*
> ...


Dude, your Cult has zero credibility.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 1, 2020)

Nostra said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...



He is a True Believer, this is what happens hen one stops actually  thinking.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Nostra said:


> *5. By 2020, "millions will die" from climate change *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




People are dying from the emissions that are fomenting climate change.

Add the deaths from more devastating hurricanes & floodings.  More deaths from malaria because warmer temps create more mosquitos.    

How many more deaths are acceptable before you act on AGW?

Climate Change Is Already Killing Us


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > *5. By 2020, "millions will die" from climate change *
> ...



Just 1, yours.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I threw a cigarette butt on the ground yesterday and then I smoked my tires at a green light while a Prius was behind me to smell the glorious rubber.

Does that count?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > *3) By 2020, no glaciers will be left on Mt. Kilimanjaro*
> ...



The ice melt myth | CFACT​
_Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro has been the poster child for land based melting supposed to be caused by Global Warming. It did loose half of its ice cover between 1880 and 1936 before the major use of fossil fuels and only 30% more in the past 80 years. However the temperature at its peak has not risen at any time during these years above freezing (32 degrees Fahrenheit). The melting has been due to deforestation and the dry air rising to the mountain top causing the ice to turn directly into water vapor a process called sublimation_​


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > *5. By 2020, "millions will die" from climate change *
> ...


Malaria deaths are falling dramatically, liar.  And 90% of those are still in one location..........Africa.  Why does MMGW cause malaria to congregate in one location?

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream...d=BD584386DD038CF61802A358B11EA32D?sequence=1


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

Grampa Murked U said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Here is RealDumb in his Prius:


----------



## Markle (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Germany has higher taxation in an effort to force reduction in energy use.



Germany's sky-high taxation has nothing to do with their cost of energy.  The average cost per kWh in the US is about $0.12 while in Germany, it has become a luxury at three times our cost, $0.35 per kWh.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jan 1, 2020)

*Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide and the Solar Minimum*
https://off-guardian.org/2019/06/21...rH32_r9U8gYDlWuy5NLngD3iWnpznFkRnK-Vv2_8xLMzn

". . . Before the IPCC formed, NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii registered co2 levelsat under 350 ppm (parts per million) with the explicit warning that if co2 exceeded that number, Mother Earth was in Big Trouble – and there would be no turning back for humanity.  Those alarm bells continue today as co2 levels have risen to 414 ppm as temperatures peaked in 1998.

From the outset, the IPCC controlled the debate by limiting its charter…

_"to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”_

*In other words, before any of the science had been done, the IPCC’s assumption was that man-made activity was responsible and that Nature was not an active participant in a process within its own sphere of interest. As an interdisciplinary topic of multiple diversity, the IPCC is not an authority on all the disciplines of science within the CC domain.*

While there is no dispute among scientists that the Sun and its cyclical output is _the true external force _driving Earth’s energy and climate system as part of a Sun-centered Universe, the IPCC’s exclusion of the Sun from its consideration can only be seen as a deliberate thwarting of a basic fundamental law of  science, a process which assures a free inquiry based on reason and evidence. 

It is the Sun which all planets of the solar system orbit around, that has the strongest gravitational pull in the solar system, is the heaviest of all celestial bodies and its sunspots in relation to Earth’s temperatures has been known since Galileo began drawing sunspots in 1613.

Yet the IPCC which touts a ‘_scientific view of climate change’_ would have us believe the Sun is irrelevant and immaterial to the IPCC’s world view and Earth’s climate; hardly a blip on their radar.. .   "


*The IPCC’s fatal founding flaw*
The IPCC’s fatal founding flaw – Quadrant Online

*"The media at large and the public that the media influences seem to believe that the IPCC is an international authority on all aspects of climate.  This is a popular but false notion.  The IPCC is, in fact, no more than a craftily assembled government-supported lobby group, doing what lobby groups usually do.*

Its charter gives the game away:

_"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."_

Or, put more simply, the IPCC is to report on the magnitude of man-made climate change and what can be done to reduce its impact, the existence of man-made climate change being assumed from the outset.

The IPCC was established through the urgings of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The former is a shadowy organisation that conducted scientific projects for UNEP and wrote in-house reports. Given the amount of work it undertook, those reports probably aligned closely with UNEP thinking.

The latter is well known for blaming human activity for every change to the environment — a stance seemingly based on the assumption that the environment never changes naturally and/or that we fully understand every natural force which might make it change. By this logic any and every deviation must be man-made.. . ." 


*A sensitive matter*
The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away
A sensitive matter

"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.. . . "


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Markle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Germany has higher taxation in an effort to force reduction in energy use.
> ...




If you look at the total cost of nuclear including plant construction & dismantling, nuclear is not cheaper than gas or coal.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

MisterBeale said:


> *Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide and the Solar Minimum*
> https://off-guardian.org/2019/06/21...rH32_r9U8gYDlWuy5NLngD3iWnpznFkRnK-Vv2_8xLMzn
> 
> ". . . Before the IPCC formed, NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii registered co2 levelsat under 350 ppm (parts per million) with the explicit warning that if co2 exceeded that number, Mother Earth was in Big Trouble – and there would be no turning back for humanity.  Those alarm bells continue today as co2 levels have risen to 414 ppm as temperatures peaked in 1998.
> ...


  Who knew the scientists at NASA were so fucking stupid?


----------



## Markle (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Only the uneducated calls education indoctrination.



Were the Hitler Youth being "educated" or indoctrinated by Adolph Hitler?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Nostra said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


 

You are killing your own children & you think it is funny./  You Trumpettes are something else.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Grampa Murked U said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


 You being an ass doesn't surprise me one bit.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Nostra said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...


  You are the one living in a cult of the uneducated & stupid.

Scientist say yes.  You fat assed orange god says its a hoax & you believe that.


Republicans used to believe in science.   What the fuck happened?  The party decided that dumbing down their base would give them more control.


----------



## Markle (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Add the deaths from more devastating hurricanes & floodings. More deaths from malaria because warmer temps create more mosquitos.



What malarkey!  You're just trolling, right?  You don't really believe that stuff do you?  The facts do not support your foolish allegation about hurricanes or floodings.

More deaths come from malaria because DDT was banned.  That erroneous banning has cost millions of lives.  They don't matter though, do they?


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You keep using the word "science" and it's a misnomer. When you use it you mean ""science' you agree with.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Breaking news from dumb ass liberals...the solution to climate change is tax increases.  What??
> ...



Liberals have to force people to obey with threats and punishment. That why we flip them the bird and tell them to fuck off.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

Markle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Only the uneducated calls education indoctrination.
> ...


 Learning science & how to think is not the same thing as being taught lies.  You assfucks think Trump is great, you deny science, you think giving wealthy people money will help you, you think it is OK to poison people with pollution if it means higher profits for corporations, you think calling people childish names is leadership, you think that our gdp gains falling by half a point is progress, you think trillion dollar deficits are great, you think stealing children is good policy, you think trashing veterans is cool, you think liking beer is grounds to be a USSC judge, you think it is OK to rape women as long as there are no witnesses.

This is what Trump has done to you assholes.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 1, 2020)

BluesLegend said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...



So, you passing anti abortions laws is not forcing what women can do with their own bodies?


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



All lies kid. Rump is the lesser of two evils from 2016.
You are stupid beyond belief son. You don't get to tell us anything, you don't get to make us do anything.
You get to whine, bitch, and cry anonymously on the internet.
That's it, you get to DO that because of thousands of people fighting for your "right" to do it.

Just thank us and move on.


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


My kids are doing just fine.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> We tax cigarettes because they are bad for you & drive up healthcare costs.



Liar, cigarettes are taxed for the tax revenue they generate.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > *5. By 2020, "millions will die" from climate change *
> ...


Can you name a single person who has died because of CAGW?

If not, then you might be a doomsday cult member.



Why haven't you killed yourself yet, you LWNJ CO2 spewing moonbat hypocrite?


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Your Cult has been busted many times manipulating data, destroying data,  have yet to get a prediction correct, and you think higher taxes and wealth redistribution will change "MMGW".


----------



## Nostra (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Nope on all counts.  

And I knew your Cult was a hoax long before Trump was elected.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


Listen ya retard. This GLOBULL warming BULLSHIT has been around for decades. Trump has been here 3 years. Take the TDS stick out of your ass and rejoin reality. IT HAS NOTHING to do with Trump. 
The only thing that has changed in all these decades is your high priests were proven to be FULL OF SHIT.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


No doubt I am an asshole. Have been my entire adult life to YOUR KIND


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Ripping the helpless limbs off babies and stabbing them in the brain stem should be allowed?


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Look at what you are forcing on other people's bodies, you fucking hypocrite. You claim that CO2 is hurting other people, yet you continue to exhale CO2 nonetheless. You are definitively a hypocrite scumbag.

In your opinion, why do you continue to destroy mother Earth by breathing?

Do you want a link to show you how to make a noose you CO2 spewing hypocrite?


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 1, 2020)

Muhammed said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...



The nerve of the left to even dare speak about the environment. The left pack people together in their cities like sardines in a can, paving over the environment obliterating it. These cancers on the planet routinely spill hundreds of millions of gallons of untreated raw sewage into rivers and oceans. They generate millions of tons of garbage and pollution. Shove that in their face and they run away and hide.


----------



## keepitreal (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


In your link there are 7 statistics that demonstrate
we are experiencing occurrences that are new to us.

The massive earthquake that triggered the massive tsunami
in Japan was so powerful it moved the coastline of Japan 8 ft
and shifted the earth's axis when it's mass was redistributed.

Do you not think that had no effect on weather patterns?

Do you think that by interfering with nature
we are causing more harm by not allowing nature to fix itself?

How do you figure 'global warming' is the problem
and not plastic?


But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified:
for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation,
and kingdom against kingdom:

And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines,
and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs
shall there be from heaven.

And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars;
and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity;
the sea and the waves roaring;

Luke 21: 9-11,25


You see yet are blind

God is creating the circumstances 
which will bring about what He has planned


----------



## Markle (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



Sorry, I was just laughing too hard to continue after the one about the forest fires.

We have had "climate change" the term Environmentalists came up with when Global Warming was proven a fraud, for the past 4.5 BILLION years.  What percentage of that are the ten years you claim we are warming?

Vikings colonized Greenland over 1,000 years ago.  They raised herds of animals and planted crops to re-supply their ships on their way to North America.  Did the SUVs and coal power plants cause all the CO2 which raised the earth's temperature?


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 1, 2020)

Muhammed said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Exactly how do you go about that, who would pay the tax for evaporation in lakes, streams, rivers and the oceans? Not to mention all the tens of thousands of square miles of pavement owned by the States.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




And we've had them throughout time, perhaps we should move people away from the coasts.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




So is our income per capita, you want to work for Chinese or Indian wages? And we've made greater strides than any other country on earth. So just STFU.

.


----------



## JusticeHammer (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


Yet idiots like you support killing your own children. You are one stupid sob.


----------



## JusticeHammer (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


You farting.


----------



## JusticeHammer (Jan 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Keep opening your mouth,Everytime you do your stupid meter goes up.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2020)

JusticeHammer said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Nostra said:
> ...



Stupid? Yes he is that. That's a given.

However, I think the more pertinent matter to the topic is whether or not the poor idiot has been so brainwashed by the leadership of the fearmongering global warming doomsday cult to which he obviously belongs (aka is a slave to) has controlled his feeble mind to the point of no return.

Is there a way to 'deprogram' them?

Or are they a lost cause?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...




The OP has the political IQ of a small soap dish. Voters don't care about this.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jan 2, 2020)

*Here's what "Climate Specialists Said Would Happen by 2020"*

Top outrageous 2020 doomsday predictions that didn't pan out
*1). The U.S. may warm 6 degrees F from 1990 to 2020*
*2). Oil will effectively run out by 2020*
*3) By 2020, no glaciers will be left on Mt. Kilimanjaro*
*4). A billion people will starve due to missing the tech revolution*
*5). By 2020, "millions will die" from climate change*
*6). Miami Florida and the entire US Coast will be underwater by 2020*

And yet fear mongering Climate imbeciles keep parroting the exact same garbage.




Actually, yes, the climate IS changing....just as it has been for BILLIONS of years.

They wore out "Global Warming" and changed it to "Climate Change"
They'll coin some new stupid fear mongering phrase for it in 5.....4.....3.....2....1.....


----------



## RealDave (Jan 2, 2020)

skookerasbil said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...




Dumbsss Repubnlicans don;t vocare.  90% of Democrasts care.

Most importantly, 17% of Republicans demand t


BasicHumanUnit said:


> *Here's what "Climate Specialists Said Would Happen by 2020"*
> 
> Top outrageous 2020 doomsday predictions that didn't pan out
> *1). The U.S. may warm 6 degrees F from 1990 to 2020*
> ...



Predictions on climate change were based on the rapidly increasing emissions.  Action was taken.

Glaciers  on Kilimanjaro are down to 10% & shrinking.  Maybe another 5 years  OMG OMG OMG

Learn what  "May" means.  What was the range predicted & was the temp increase within that range?

Oil running out was based on current known reserves under current methods. This was said by oil industry experts.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 2, 2020)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> *Here's what "Climate Specialists Said Would Happen by 2020"*
> 
> Top outrageous 2020 doomsday predictions that didn't pan out
> *1). The U.S. may warm 6 degrees F from 1990 to 2020*
> ...



Global warming is a form of climate change.  If the term Global Warming is used you assfucks run in circles & have a fit every day it is cold.

Only 20 percent of Republicans think climate change is an issue.  How big a percent of Republicans not voting for your fat assed orange buddy will it take for him to lose?

All those kids that lined up behind Greta will soon be voting.  Young people will suffer the most & they are sick & tired of Republican stupidity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2020)

Nostra said:


> *1. The U.S. may warm 6 degrees F from 1990 to 2020*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In 1990, Climate "science" was fairly primitive, they thought that water vapor was the most dangerous greenhouse gas and they had no experiments linking C02 to warming. In 2020, they still have no experiments but tell us that the "'science' is settled"


----------



## Redfish (Jan 2, 2020)

The same leftists who banned plastic straws because one turtle got one in his nose are supporting the idiots in SFO and LA who have allowed human waste to run in the streets into the ocean where those same turtles live.

liberalism is a mental disease, they prove it every day.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jan 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > *Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide and the Solar Minimum*
> ...




It is not a matter of this particular scientist or that particular scientist being, "stupid," it is a matter of only highlighting selected scientist's work for political reasons.

As Gator rightly observed;



Golfing Gator said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



The issue should have never been made political in the first place.

All I did was post hard and fast PROOF of who is making it political and why.  Of the self-selective bias, the CONCRETE bias producing of the international political organizational network that is creating this hysteria, and how it has absolutely nothing to do with REAL hard unbiased peer reviewed science.

This is why no one is taking your crusade seriously.  You do not want to talk about the problem in a sane, real, and productive way, only in a way that has a political agenda.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 2, 2020)

Sorry to interrupt ...

The article in the OP is about dynamic meteorology ... climate in measured in 100 years time intervals ... all the claims in the article are well within the normal statistical distribution ... these are the things we're just now learning about our existing climate, there's no demonstration this is a change of any kind to the climate ...

There's some howlers in that article ... "Six Category 5 hurricanes in four years" ... we saw four Cat 5's in just two years back in the 1930's ... normal as normal can be, not evidence of change ... we went nine years without any from 2007 to 2016, and 15 years without from 1938 to 1953 ... just to give an idea of the distribution we have ... (keep in mind that all data from before 1975 or so is considered scientifically unreliable and under-reported, so any climate claims based on hurricane frequency is NOT based on data and should be considered speculation) ...

Wildfires are caused by Californians playing with matches ... the more Californians that are playing with matches, the more wildfires there will be ... duh ...

The outright falsehood is with the "1,000 year event" garbage ... we have about 2,200 weather stations in the USA, a "one in a thousand" flood event averages 2.2 times per year, or 22 "thousand year events" per decade ... if and only if we have a 1,000 years data ... ha ha ha  ... Tropical Storm Harvey was the worst flood in Houston on record, which makes it a "once in a 140 years event" only ... Alarmists lie ... Arctic Amplification + 2nd Law of Thermodynamics = LESS FLOODS ... that's simple meteorology ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Sorry to interrupt ...
> 
> The article in the OP is about dynamic meteorology ... climate in measured in 100 years time intervals ... all the claims in the article are well within the normal statistical distribution ... these are the things we're just now learning about our existing climate, there's no demonstration this is a change of any kind to the climate ...
> 
> ...



1938 Hurricane cut off Montauk from the rest of Long Island and carves out Shinnencock Inlet.  Odd that the storms have been more and more and more severer since then, er, or something. Pay no attention to the Settled science.  I guess the NY CO2 molecule ain't what is used to be


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Predictions on climate change were based on the rapidly increasing emissions.  Action was taken.



Predictions were based on us continuing to emit a certain amount of CO2...the fact is that we, as a species, emitted 25% more CO2 than was anticipated....add to that, not one, but two very strong el nino events...had they anticipated those el nino events, the predictions would have been even more dire, and therefore even further from reality...

I realize that you have probably had very little exposure to actual science and get your information from people who are perfectly willing to lie to you...but the fact is that in this past year,  peer reviewed, published science said that polar ice is stable, sea level rise continues at the normal level it has for centuries, the snow cover in the northern hemisphere is growing, there are fewer tropical storms and tornadoes, deserts are shrinking, the globe is greening, climate models are terribly flawed, the climate is driven by the sun and ocean cycles, and it was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today.  That is what peer reviewed, published science has said.

In this past year, peer reviewed, published science has pointed out that:

The globe's islands are growing...not sinking as predicted by climate science
The Sahara desert is shrinking
The consensus...isn't, as more than 500 papers were published that question it
Storm energy is declining, 
The arctic is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years
Oceans are less acidic with rising CO2
Sea level was over 8 feet higher 6000 years ago
The polar vortex warming link was disproven
The predictions made in 2000 were wrong
The sun has been driving the warming of the past few decades
Electric cars are worse than diesel when it comes to CO2
Grain production has quadrupled as the population has doubled
Great swaths of the globe have seen no warming for the past quarter century
The pause is real
Greenland's glaciers are mostly stable or growing
The world's tide gages show no unusual sea level rise
There is no gulf stream collapse as was predicted
Arctic ice has grown over the past 13 years
The Medieval warm period was warmer than the present and global in nature
Renewable energy is creating energy poverty
400% coral recovery since 2014
Global weather has become less extreme
Cold weather deaths are rising (due in part to increased energy cost...ie renewables
Biodiversity is more harmed by cooling than warming
The warming since 1979 is entirely natural
74% of the globe has greened since 1981
The equatorial sea level has fallen since the 1600's
There is no empirical evidence demonstrating a human / climate link
CO2 is a negligible factor in climate
The arctic was 4.6C warmer in the 1930's
I will gladly provide you with links to the peer reviewed, published papers that make the above statements...while i doubt that you can provide a link to any peer reviewed, published paper disputing any of them..  So much for your consensus...actual science is winning out...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2020)

Redfish said:


> The same leftists who banned plastic straws because one turtle got one in his nose are supporting the idiots in SFO and LA who have allowed human waste to run in the streets into the ocean where those same turtles live.
> 
> liberalism is a mental disease, they prove it every day.



I was recently in the socialist republic of california...and you can't get a plastic straw there...instead, they give you this enormous sippy cup arrangement instead which has enough plastic in it to make half a dozen straws...meanwhile, raw sewage is running down the gutters and people are living in tents and shacks as if you were in some 3rd world country..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Predictions on climate change were based on the rapidly increasing emissions.  Action was taken.
> ...



Has Guam finally tipped over?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 2, 2020)

SSDD said:


> I will gladly provide you with links to the peer reviewed, published papers that make the above statements...



Please do ...


----------



## flack (Jan 2, 2020)

Same old Dave!


----------



## Markle (Jan 2, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



He's still in office!


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jan 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Global warming is a form of climate change.  If the term Global Warming is used you assfucks run in circles & have a fit every day it is cold.
> Only 20 percent of Republicans think climate change is an issue.  How big a percent of Republicans not voting for your fat assed orange buddy will it take for him to lose?
> All those kids that lined up behind Greta will soon be voting.  Young people will suffer the most & they are sick & tired of Republican stupidity.



One day, the Far Left leadership will be done with you peon puppets.  On that day they will tell you that jumping from a tall building will save the planet.
Lemming Stew.
thud...thud....thump...thud....thud....splat....plop....thud....thud....splat...thump......thud........................................


----------



## initforme (Jan 2, 2020)

Well since the ocean is full of plastic it does make sense to cut down on plastic usage worldwide.  But of course there is blowback on that because hey most people are so unbelievably dumb they will say all that plastic in the ocean is necessary.   Most people are ignorant until a chemical makes them sick.  Erin brockovichs was a great american.


----------



## Markle (Jan 2, 2020)

initforme said:


> Well since the ocean is full of plastic it does make sense to cut down on plastic usage worldwide.  But of course there is blowback on that because hey most people are so unbelievably dumb they will say all that plastic in the ocean is necessary.   Most people are ignorant until a chemical makes them sick.  Erin brockovichs was a great american.



What is the source of all that plastic?







Infographic: The Countries Polluting The Oceans The Most


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I will gladly provide you with links to the peer reviewed, published papers that make the above statements...
> ...



Any particular one or do you want a list of them all?


----------



## initforme (Jan 2, 2020)

I was speaking to all nation's.  What the world has done to the oceans with plastics is reprehensible.  It's so so much cheaper to not throw it in the ocean.  It's a ton cheaper to take care of it properly.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2020)

initforme said:


> Well since the ocean is full of plastic it does make sense to cut down on plastic usage worldwide.  But of course there is blowback on that because hey most people are so unbelievably dumb they will say all that plastic in the ocean is necessary.   Most people are ignorant until a chemical makes them sick.  Erin brockovichs was a great american.



I agree.  I think far to much packaging is being used and would favor penalties for suppliers who use excessive packaging...I also favor ridiculously expensive fines for people who toss their trash on the ground or in the street....$500 for a gum wrapper....$750 for a drinking straw...and on and on...base the fine on how biodegradable the trash is...make littering painful for those who do it...and make it so expensive to litter on a commercial scale that the fines would most likely break the company who does it...


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jan 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...




Huffington post is a well known racist and white supremacist 

organization...I mean its  a ku klux Klan meeting 






Ku klux bleedin clams

Actually audio of meetinG 

Or typical hour of the view


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 3, 2020)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You said gladly ... wouldn't it make you happier to list them all? ... full citations please, along with the links ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



I'll give you links...if the citations are that important to you, you will handle that yourself...  

Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Origin of spatial variation in US East Coast sea-level trends during 1900â€“2017

Drivers of woody plant encroachment over Africa

Changing available energy for extratropical cyclones and associated convection in Northern Hemisphere summer

Changing available energy for extratropical cyclones and associated convection in Northern Hemisphere summer

Vegetation and Climate of the New Siberian Islands for the Past 15,000 Years

Pronounced summer warming in northwest Greenland during the Holocene and Last Interglacial

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Relative sea-level highstands in Thailand since the Mid-Holocene based on 14C rock oyster chronology - ScienceDirect

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2019/1214896/

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.729.6404&rep=rep1&type=pdf

An updated review about carbon dioxide and climate change


You digest those and I will provide more when time allows.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 3, 2020)

Golfing Gator said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...



AGW people care, forcing us to care. Also, some things on a global scale we probably just won't be able to influence, or at least influence cost-effectively. 

Deserts expand, mountains erode, shores recede. and they would do so without our caring about it.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 3, 2020)

Richard-H said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...



Fix the problems when they happen, don't try to lower the standard of living of everyone "just in case"


----------



## martybegan (Jan 3, 2020)

Richard-H said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Some of which you AGW tards want to get rid of in sacrifice to mighty Gaia.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2.  That is why we need to starty now to cut emissions.  

Marty is dumber than shit.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...



Considering it takes decades to put it in, balance.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 3, 2020)

initforme said:


> Well since the ocean is full of plastic it does make sense to cut down on plastic usage worldwide.  But of course there is blowback on that because hey most people are so unbelievably dumb they will say all that plastic in the ocean is necessary.   Most people are ignorant until a chemical makes them sick.  Erin brockovichs was a great american.




the USA contributes a tiny % of the plastic in the ocean, most comes from China, Indonesia, and India.   Whats your plan to stop them from dumping it in the ocean?


----------



## Redfish (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...




CO2 makes up .039% of eatth's atmosphere, it was at that same level 50,000 years ago according to ice core studies.  Not a single plant on earth can live without CO2,  none, zero, nada.   

Is it part of your planet saving agenda to do away with all plant life?


----------



## Redfish (Jan 3, 2020)

martybegan said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




assuming its out of balance now, which it is not.


----------



## martybegan (Jan 3, 2020)

Redfish said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



We have been adding sequestered carbon faster than it is being formed. The question is if the system is compensating using shorter term storage mechanisms such as plant life and oceanic absorption, and what actual impact increased CO2 has on the system as a whole, in the amounts we are seeing.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Predictions on climate change were based on the rapidly increasing emissions.  Action was taken.
> ...




The arctic was 4.6C warmer in the 1930s.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 3, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




it is less than half of one % of the atmosphere, same as it was 50,000  years ago.

I think there is a consensus among all intelligent people that we should reduce pollution, but the link between pollution and climate is fake.  It was created by leftists in order to control every human activity.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




and the Saudi Arabian desert was once a swampy rain forest,   means nothing.   Try correlating sun spot activity to those variations and you will find a direct relationship/

the sun controls the climate of planet earth, not human beings.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

Redfish said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



We are spewing more than the Earth can remove you stupid shit.  That is why the levels are climbing.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




simply not true.  you have been brainwashed.  and hurling juvenile insults is further confirmation of that.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

Redfish said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The percent being under 1& is not relevant.  The idea it is higher is relevant as it foments the greenhouse effect.

The only fake poiple are the stupid ones like you who lie about AGW because their orange master told them so.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

Redfish said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


It is simple logic.  Evidently you hase no logic.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

Redfish said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Go to the below website & contact the scientists there & tell them about sunspots since you seem to think they never considered sub spots.  Wow, you are so smart!

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


----------



## Redfish (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




no its not logic, or science.  its left wing propaganda aimed at making us all slaves to the world elites, I see that its already worked on you.

windmills kill innocent birds and there is no way to dispose of those huge blades when they wear out.   solar panels require huge amounts of fossil fuel consumption in their manufacturing processes,  electric car batteries are toxic when used up.  

the only real answer is to find ways to use oil, coal and gas with less emissions,


----------



## Redfish (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




I see nothing there about sun spots, but I do remember that Obozo tasked NASA with "muslim outreach"   how did that work out?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jan 3, 2020)

Remember when the left ran around screaming the sky is falling because the ozone was disappearing.....

Yeah lol, I do. 

SSDD indeed


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

Redfish said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You were supposed to contact them & tell them about sun spots.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Remember when the left ran around screaming the sky is falling because the ozone was disappearing.....
> 
> Yeah lol, I do.
> 
> SSDD indeed


You God damn stupid fuck.  Action was taken to abate the problem by banning things like certain aerosols.

How stupid are you people?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Remember when the left ran around screaming the sky is falling because the ozone was disappearing.....
> ...


Not as dumb as you apparently since you seem to think banning hairspray led to the problem being solved.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

Redfish said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You cl;aimed the CO2 levels were in balance.  If they were in balance, the levels would not be increasing.  That is logic.  You are an idiot.

Oil & Gas kills more birds, Transportation kills more birds,  Building kill more birds, cats kill more birds.

You are a slave to the fossil fuel industry.  

car batteries are toxic


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

Grampa Murked U said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


  That was part of it.

Facts are your friend.  You should learn some.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 3, 2020)

SSDD said:


> I'll give you links...if the citations are that important to you, you will handle that yourself...


--> Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
Paywall, and not even an article, it’s a commentary … the opening paragraph does not support your claims … FAIL …
--> Error - Cookies Turned Off
This paper deals with coral atolls, which are living organisms ... does not support your claim of "growing" ... FAIL ... to be fair, partially ...
--> Origin of spatial variation in US East Coast sea-level trends during 1900â€“2017
Please clarify which of your claims this letter is attached to ... otherwise ... FAIL ...
--> Drivers of woody plant encroachment over Africa
This article does not support your claim of 74% ... they found only 8% increase ... FAIL ...
--> Changing available energy for extratropical cyclones and associated convection in Northern Hemisphere summer
--> Changing available energy for extratropical cyclones and associated convection in Northern Hemisphere summer
Verified weaking of cyclones ... I can see why you posted this link twice ... TRUE ...
--> Vegetation and Climate of the New Siberian Islands for the Past 15,000 Years
Using bird remains as a proxy for temperatures ... limited success, but ... TRUE ...
--> Pronounced summer warming in northwest Greenland during the Holocene and Last Interglacial
Does not support your claim Greenland's glaciers are growing ... FAIL ...
--> SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
This article claims several warm periods in the Arctic, one as recent as 900 years ago ... FAIL ...
--> Error - Cookies Turned Off
This article quite clearly states ocean pH is falling ... FAIL ...
--> Relative sea-level highstands in Thailand since the Mid-Holocene based on 14C rock oyster chronology - ScienceDirect
Yeah, 8 feet or better higher sea levels ... TRUE ...
--> https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2019/1214896/
Neither experiment discussed here support your claim the Sun is driving warming, opposite in fact ... FAIL ...
--> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.729.6404&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Whereas this paper does connect solar activity to warming .. TRUE ...
--> An updated review about carbon dioxide and climate change
Paywall ... seems to support your claim ... TRUE ...

You should read the articles before you use them as citations ... only 5 supported your claims, 8 disputed your claims ... that's an awful record ...
If we look at your post #201 again, you're doing a bit better ... 5 claims confirmed, 4 claims failed, with 21 claims still to be addressed ... as good as coin-flipping ...

You're just randomly posting links without coordinating them to the claims in post #201 ... that's bad form and leads one to suspect you're trying to confuse the issue ... let's get that problem cleaned up before you post anymore links ... I'll take the time to read the links, you should take the time to connect the link to the claim ...

Overall, though, *GREAT READS* ... thank you for yarding these up and posting links ... these past two hours were well spent on my end ... I am looking forward to the rest ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2.  That is why we need to starty now to cut emissions.



We know how much fossil fuel we burn every year ... and the Alarmists claim we produce 35 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year ... the problem is we're only measuring an increase of 18 gigatons in our atmosphere per year ... fully HALF our emissions are removed by the Earth every year ... do the math yourself, it's easy unless you're a liberal ...

I think Alarmists are lying ... exaggerating to get attention ... deflect folks from the data coming in now that disputes their agenda ... 

Months ... not decades ...


----------



## RealDave (Jan 3, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2.  That is why we need to starty now to cut emissions.
> ...



WTF?

18 gigatons removed.   35 emitted.  = 17 gigatons increase.

That is assuming that 18 gigatons removed is just the fossil fuel emissions & not all emissions.

That is mathematics.  I don't what that bullshit you posted was.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 3, 2020)

English as a second language? ... "we're only measuring an increase of 18 gigatons in our atmosphere per year" ... try reading that with comprehension, and post your math, 2.3 ppmv is how many tons? ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I'll give you links...if the citations are that important to you, you will handle that yourself...
> ...



The claims are supported....







“Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”

The fail is all yours...



ReinyDays said:


> --> Error - Cookies Turned Off
> This paper deals with coral atolls, which are living organisms ... does not support your claim of "growing" ... FAIL ... to be fair, partially ...








_“This review first confirms that over the past decades to century, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization by sea level rise. The global sample considered in this paper, which includes 30 atolls and 709 islands, reveals that atolls did not lose land area, and that 73.1% of islands were stable in land area, including most settled islands, while 15.5% of islands increased and 11.4% decreased in size. Atoll and island areal stability can therefore be considered as a global trend.”

“Importantly, islands located in ocean regions affected by rapid sea-level rise showed neither contraction nor marked shoreline retreat, which indicates that they may not be affected yet by the presumably negative, that is, erosive, impact of sea-level rise.”
“It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size, making this value a relevant threshold to define atoll island areal stability.”_




ReinyDays said:


> --> Origin of spatial variation in US East Coast sea-level trends during 1900â€“2017
> Please clarify which of your claims this letter is attached to ... otherwise ... FAIL ...



Just more evidence that sea level rise is not the threat to coastal areas that is claimed..

_“Here we analyse instrumental data and proxy reconstructions using probabilistic methods to show that *vertical motions of Earth’s crust exerted the dominant control on regional spatial differences in relative sea-level trends along the US East Coast during 1900–2017*, explaining most of the large-scale spatial variance. … Rates of coastal subsidence caused by ongoing relaxation of the peripheral forebulge associated with the last deglaciation are strongest near North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia [locations where the sea level rise rates are highest]. *Our* *results indicate that the majority of large-scale spatial variation in long-term rates of relative sea-level rise on the US East Coast is due to geological processes that will persist at similar rates for centuries*. … We note that negative VLM [vertical land motion] reflects subsidence and hence contributes to sea-level rise. Correspondingly, *the most negative VLM *[vertical land motion]* rate (−2.5 ± 0.6 mm yr−1) is likely (P = 0.75) to occur in the states that host the maximum sea-level rise*, North Carolina or Virginia, whereas the most positive rate of VLM (0.7 ± 0.8 mm yr−1) is very likely (P = 0.90) to occur in Maine.” _(*Piecuch et al., 2018*)



ReinyDays said:


> --> Drivers of woody plant encroachment over Africa
> This article does not support your claim of 74% ... they found only 8% increase ... FAIL ...



The statement this link refers to is that the sahara is shrinking....read for comprehension. The sahara is shrinking.



ReinyDays said:


> --> Pronounced summer warming in northwest Greenland during the Holocene and Last Interglacial
> Does not support your claim Greenland's glaciers are growing ... FAIL ...
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Why yes, it was...

A comparison of bioclimatic conditions on Franz Josef Land (the Arctic) between the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century and present day

In approximately the* last 140 years*, there have been *two periods of significant temperature increases in the Arctic.* The *first began in around 1918–1920 and lasted until 1938* and has been called the *‘1930s warming’* (Bengtsson et al. 2004). Other works have referred to this period as the *‘Early Twentieth Century Warming’ (ETCW*, Brönnimann 2009) or the ‘Early Twentieth Century Arctic Warming’ (ETCAW, Wegmann et al. 2017, 2018). Our results confirm the observations for the last expedition from the historical study period in 1930/1931. These years covered the warmest part of the ETCW (Table 3, Fig. 4). In turn, *the second increased warming of the Arctic began around 1980*(Johannessen et al. 2004) or according to Przybylak (2007) in about the mid-1990s. Changes in overall atmospheric circulation have long been believed to have been the cause of the ETCW (e.g. Scherhag 1937). *As the modern climate warming (since 1975) has progressed in a largely similar manner to the progression of the ETCW* (Wood and Overland 2010; Semenov and Latif 2012), there has been renewed interest in the *insufficiently well-explained causes of the ETCW* using the latest research methods, including, primarily, *climate models*. An analysis of the literature shows that the *cause of such a significant warming in the present period is still not clear.* There is even controversy over whether the main factors in the process are *natural or anthropogenic*, although the decided majority of researchers assign a greater role to natural factors (Bengtsson et al. 2004; Semenov and Latif 2012). It would appear that the greatest differences of opinion on the causes of the ETCW are to be found in works presenting climate models (see, e.g. Shiogama et al. 2006; Suo et al. 2013), which is an excellent illustration of the *still insufficient knowledge of the mechanisms governing the Arctic Climate System*.”

…during the 1930/31 expedition it was 4.6 °C warmer than the years 1981–2010.”

Direct measurements vs your heavily infilled, homogenized, manipulated chart?  I'll go with the direct measurements and peer reviewed literature over government, un reviewed charts...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Logic?  What do you know about logic?  You can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and yet, you believe in the AGW hypothesis...what exactly does belief in a hypothesis without a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports it over natural variability have to do with logic?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Remember when the left ran around screaming the sky is falling because the ozone was disappearing.....
> ...



There is not, and never has been an ozone crisis...  It was just pseudoscience aimed at people who are prone to panic.  You claim to be logical...so apply some logic to this and answer the question...

CFC molecules are found in the ozone layer at a concentration of about 3 parts per BILLION...that is billion with a B...NO is a naturally occurring catalyst for ozone and just as reactive to ozone as any CFC molecule and it is found in the ozone layer at a concentration of about 5 to 7 parts per million...Nitrogen, is a natural reactant to ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 750,000 parts per million.  

Now combine those facts with the fact that at an altitude of 20Km, the life span of an ozone molecule is about 1000 seconds...and at 32Km, the life span of an ozone molecule is about 4200 seconds.

OK...you have a CFC molecule present at a concentration of 3 parts per billion, which can react with ozone in the same way as naturally occurring NO...and any given ozone molecule is going to have a life span of between 16 and 70 minutes....what are the chances of a CFC molecule which is present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION, encountering a single ozone molecule (much less wantonly destroying them in their millions as the pseudoscience would lead you to believe) which is present at a concentration of about 10 parts per million in the 16 to 70 minute span that any given ozone molecule exists before it naturally breaks apart?  

Apply your logic to those facts and tell me how you believe CFC's ever represented a threat to the ozone layer...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Prior to the onset of the ice age that the earth is in the process of warming out of (we hope) atmospheric CO2 levels were about 1000ppm...relative to earth history, the atmosphere is positively starved for CO2...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Our 35GT is not even enough CO2 to outweigh the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 3, 2020)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > --> Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
> ...



Let's see if we have this straight ... there was a *GAIN* of 115,000 km^2 of water area and a *GAIN* of 173,000 km^2 of land area ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

What a moron ... did we LOSE 288,000 km^2 of air area or something ... the article is about something else, you're just going to have to pay the $9 and read it yourself ...

The rest is much of the same ... go on with the other links ... I'm waiting ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 3, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Our 35GT is not even enough CO2 to outweigh the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year...



And what is this weight of carbon dioxide and where does it go? ... it ain't showing up in the atmosphere, that's my point in case you missed it ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



Not sure what you are finding so difficult to grasp about this...but lets see if we can make it even more clear for you although I don't see how much more clear it could be than one of the authors of the paper saying  "We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world...

I made the claim that the globe's islands are growing.....my statement is supported...if coastal areas, islands included are gaining more land than they are losing to water....then they are growing..how difficult is that?






The evidence hardly stops there though...I hate to repeat, but since you didn't get it the first time, maybe a second look might help.

Error - Cookies Turned Off







Physical modelling of the response of reef islands to sea-level rise | Geology | GeoScienceWorld

While this is based on a model, there are observations to back up the findings....

“Here, we present evidence from physical model experiments of a reef island that demonstrates *islands have the capability to morphodynamically respond to rising sea level through island accretion*. Challenging outputs from existing models based on the assumption that islands are geomorphologically inert, results demonstrate that *islands not only move laterally on reef platforms, but overwash processes provide a mechanism to build and maintain the freeboard of islands above sea level*. *Implications of island building are profound, as it will offset existing scenarios of dramatic increases in island flooding*. Future predictive models must include the morphodynamic behavior of islands to better resolve flood impacts and future island vulnerability.”

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811204487_0080

“Coral reef islands are unconsolidated deposits of reef-derived sand and gravel that are considered vulnerable to the impacts of global sea-level rise because of their low elevation (< 3 m) and exposure oceanic wave energy. Previous research has shown that sea-level rise will drive an increase in wave overtopping on reef island shorelines, which will be an increasing hazard for atoll island communities. Here, we show that wave overtopping on reef islands is a geomorphically important process that facilitates sediment deposition on the island surface and vertical building. *Field evidence from 26 overwash deposits show that vertical island accretion can be driven by king tides, long-period swell, local storms, tropical cyclones and tsunami. Deposit depths ranged between 0.06–1.93 m and increased island elevations by between 4–400%*. *Recognition that overwash processes can contribute to vertical island building is instructive in considering the potential for islands to adjust to future increases in sea-level* and to incorporate this critical morphodynamic response in future flood risk modelling for low islands.”


Physical modelling of reef island topographic response to rising sea levels - ScienceDirect

“[R]esults show that the rate and magnitude of physical adjustment is strongly dependent on the rate and magnitude of sea-level rise and wave conditions. *Results challenge existing models of future island susceptibility to wave driven flooding, demonstrating that washover processes can provide a mechanism to build and potentially maintain island freeboard above sea level*. These insights highlight an urgent need to incorporate island morphodynamics into flood risk models in order to produce accurate assessments of future wave-driven flood risks and better resolve island vulnerability.”

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811204487_0088

“Low-lying coral reef islands are considered extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. However, future island morphodynamic adjustments in response to anticipated sea level rise and changing wave conditions are currently poorly resolved. Assertions of island vulnerability are based on outputs from flood risk models that simulate sea level rise on present day island topography despite evidence that many reef islands are highly dynamic landforms. Utilizing a physical modelling methodology, three experiment programs were undertaken to model gravel island morphodynamics in response to increasing sea level and changing wave conditions. Modelling outputs present new insights into the modes and styles of island change, primarily the first experimental evidence that *reef islands can keep pace with sea level rise through island building driven by washover processes*. *Results suggest that many islands are less vulnerable to inundation than currently perceived and may endure on reef platforms despite sea level rise*.”


Remote sensing of unhelpful resilience to sea level rise caused by mangrove expansion: A case study of islands in Florida Bay, USA - ScienceDirect

_“To estimate the resilience influences on 15 islands in Florida Bay (Florida, U.S.), our study used indicators (areas of the 15 islands and their mangrove forests) by analyzing 61-yr high-resolution historical aerial photographs and a 27-yr time-series of Landsat images.”

“Comparative spatial analysis of the historical aerial images showed that the island area significantly increased from 1953 to 2014. For example, Joe Kemp Key had the largest area increase from 0.34 km2 to 0.37 km2. Moreover, the similar increased patterns of island area were found for annual total areas of the 15 islands from 1984 to 2011 by analysis of Landsat images. The total areas showed a significant increasing pattern with time. Therefore, results from the analysis of both aerial and satellite images revealed increases in island area, which indicate the island resilience to inundation caused by SLR. However, three islands […] decreased in area.”

“The long-term island area increases estimated by our analysis supported the resilience of Florida Bay islands to SLR inundation. Moreover, both the positive relationship between the increases of island area and mangrove expansion, and previous field studies in the Florida Bay and nearby Caribbean mangroves suggested the contribution of the mangrove expansion were at the expense of non-mangrove habitats.”_





The fact is, and the studies show that overall, the globe's islands, are in fact growing.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Our 35GT is not even enough CO2 to outweigh the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year...
> ...



You seem to be unable, or unwilling to grasp the larger point....that being that the CO2 we produce is not even enough to upset the yearly natural variation in the earth's own CO2 producing machinery...The amount of CO2 we produce is not enough to overcome the noise in the system..


----------



## Redfish (Jan 4, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




the CO2 in our atmosphere is not increasing,  it fluctuates with the seasons like it has for hundreds of millions of years before man ever appeared on earth.

You remind me of the pathetic little girl from scandinavia,  full of talking points and BS be devoid of any facts or logic.   

Have you done away with your car?   stopped heating your house?  started eating grass the twigs?   Like all liberals, I am quite sure you live like a normal person but demand that everyone else comply with the lords of AGW.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 4, 2020)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




your post just caused several liberal heads to implode


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2020)

Redfish said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



Doubtful...liberals aren't moved by facts...they respond to how a thing makes them feel.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 9, 2020)

Most important stat on "Global Warming":






But the magnetic field has more to do with climate than CO2..


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 14, 2020)

How would you explain this?

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> How would you explain this?
> 
> Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet



The further back you go, the deeper you get into the ice age that the earth is presently trying to warm out of.  Cold oceans hold more CO2 than warm oceans, and cold climate depress the earth's own CO2 making machinery.  As the earth warms, its own CO2 making machinery kicks into a higher gear, and warmer oceans outgas more CO2.

If that chart went back to the period prior to the onset of the present ice age, you would see atmospheric CO2 levels at the time that the earth started cooling into the ice age of about 1000ppm...more than twice the present level.

Climate sceince likes to show you just enough to make you think things have always been a certain way...they never show you the real long term trend.  The fact is that by historical standards, our 400ppm indicates a CO2 drought in the earth's atmosphere.  Rarely has it ever been this low in the entirety of earth's history.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 15, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> How would you explain this?
> 
> Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet




the explanation:  NASA has an agenda, they are part of the AGW religion that is trying to tell us all how to live our lives.  fuck em!


----------



## Redfish (Jan 15, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain this?
> ...




this is not about facts or science.  Its about a religion that says that humans are evil and must be removed from mother earth in order for her to survive.  Its a form of mental disease.

you cannot argue facts with indoctrinated idiots.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 15, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> How would you explain this?
> 
> Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet



The first problem is the vertical scale is deceptively truncated ... 160-480 ppm instead of a more honest zero point ... the second problem is the horizontal scale is too short, instead of a million years it should be 500 million years, which requires the vertical scale to expand to closer to 4,000 ppm ...

See ... do you think this is better with these corrections? ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 15, 2020)

SSDD said:


> If that chart went back to the period prior to the onset of the present ice age, you would see atmospheric CO2 levels at the time that the earth started cooling into the ice age of about 1000ppm...more than twice the present level


"Prior to the onset of the present ice" age means before the existence of human beings?

History of the world - Wikipedia


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 15, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> How would you explain this?
> 
> Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet



Notice that you left this part out:




> This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).



NASA doesn't say it out loud, but grafting YEARLY CO2 values onto a much lower resolution proxy values is scientific malpractice.

Misleading and dishonest.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 15, 2020)

Humans have been around for about 300,000 years ... the current ice age started about 30 million years ago ... the coal beds were laid down about 300 million years ago ...

Wikipedia is using the wrong terminology in that article ... should read "the most recent glaciation" ... this thread is about climatology, not anthropology, the time scales are very different ... if you want to use the term "ice age", I'm fine with that, we all know what you're talking about ... but if you want to quibble about it, you'll be wrong ...

Your link in post #260 touches upon a number of different effects that are predicted ... all of them can be easily dismissed and have been throughout this Environment Forum ... so the simple answer to your question "How would you explain this?" is by applying basic physics ... force is equal to mass times acceleration ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 15, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain this?
> ...



The explanation is that every point on that graph, except for the last century, has a resolution of hundreds of years.  if you had a data point for every year of the graph, there would be many peaks and valleys at least as dramatic as the last one shown.  It's one of the many tricks (lies) the warmist cult resorts to.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 15, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain this?
> ...


*BINGO!*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 15, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...





bripat9643 said:


> The explanation is that every point on that graph, except for the last century, has a resolution of hundreds of years. if you had a data point for every year of the graph, there would be many peaks and valleys at least as dramatic as the last one shown. It's one of the many tricks (lies) the warmist cult resorts to.


What explains the 100 ppm increase in CO2 over the last 70 years, particularly if atmospheric levels of that particular compound had been below that threshold for the last 800,000 years?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 15, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



Wow....

That would make us like the moron lefties of the 30's that put S.S. in place and burdened us and our children for a lifetime.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 15, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Higher !!!!!

Higher !!!!!

Higher !!!!!

Go !

Go !

Go !


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 15, 2020)

Golfing Gator said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 15, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain this?
> ...





Redfish said:


> he explanation: NASA has an agenda, they are part of the AGW religion that is trying to tell us all how to live our lives. fuck em!


*Do you agree with this?*

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. 

"*Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization*. 

"Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives."

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 15, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Only the average of several hundred years is below that level.

You didn't understand what I posted, did you?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 15, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain this?
> ...





Sunsettommy said:


> NASA doesn't say it out loud, but grafting YEARLY CO2 values onto a much lower resolution proxy values is scientific malpractice.
> 
> Misleading and dishonest.


*What's misleading and/or dishonest about the following?*

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

*"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.*1

"Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. 

"This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 

"Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. 

*"There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 15, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





bripat9643 said:


> Only the average of several hundred years is below that level.
> 
> You didn't understand what I posted, did you?


Not exactly.
Do you have a link explaining why you believe there would be wild swings in annual atmospheric CO2 levels over thousands of years?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 15, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain this?
> ...


They must have attended the Michael Mann school of deception...


----------



## bluzman61 (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


Hey, Dave, here's the deal - Climate Change = WEATHER.  That's ALL you need to know, ya knucklehead.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If that chart went back to the period prior to the onset of the present ice age, you would see atmospheric CO2 levels at the time that the earth started cooling into the ice age of about 1000ppm...more than twice the present level
> ...


And what difference do you think that makes.  CO2 was naturally hihjer without us than it is with us...what do you think that means or proves?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Do we have any real evidence that proves the past changes were due to small variations in earth’s orbit?  Of course not.  We are just beginning to scratch the surface regarding what drives the climate.  Climate science “attiributed” past changes in the climate entirely to ordinal changes because that supported the narrative...not because they had any evidence to support the attribution...that is what climate science at present does...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> *What's misleading and/or dishonest about the following?*
> 
> Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
> 
> *"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.*1



What is misleading / and or dishonest about it?  Are you kidding?  How about the fact that no part of it is supported by empirical scientific evidence?  It is based on nothing.

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.

To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

To date, there has not been a single peer reviewed, published scientific paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our greenhouse gasses.

Now, your statement says that it is greater than 95% probable that we are causing the bit of warming that has been observed over the past 100 years, and yet, there isn't a bit of actual empirical evidence to support the claim...there hasn't even been a paper published in which the warming we are supposed to be causing has been measured and quantified...how does one decide that there is a 95% probability that we are causing the warming when there is no actual evidence to support the claim?



georgephillip said:


> "This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.



Can you name a period in the history of the earth when the climate wasn't changing?  So satellites verify that the climate changes...so what?  It has always been changing and the bit of change we have seen is very small compared to past changes.  What do you think evidence that the climate changes proves?...other than that the climate changes?



georgephillip said:


> "The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2



Actually that was proposed in the 19th century...and the experiments that supposedly supported the proposition were done at the high school hobbiest level and were terribly flawed...they didn't show what they claimed, and there have been no modern experiments published which support the claims of that quaint science...  I repeat, to dated, there is not one piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere..CO2 has no heat trapping nature...nor any heat trapping ability...but feel free to provide some actual experimental evidence that proves my statement wrong.



georgephillip said:


> "Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA.



Very little energy transfers through the troposphere via radiation...the vast bulk of energy movement through the troposphere is via conduction and convection.....but again, fee free to provide any empirical evidence demonstrating any "heat trapping" ability of CO2..

*


georgephillip said:



			"There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."
		
Click to expand...

*
There is no question...but then there is no evidence to support the claim...if you believe there is, by all means, lets see it.  If such evidence existed, then you would not be able to get away from it...it would be everywhere...billboards, TV, Radio...heck it would be on tubes of toothpaste...such evidence would eliminate skepticism...so lets see it..

I predict that you won't be able to provide a single shred of observed, measured evidence to contradict any of the 3 statements I made above regarding evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, or evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, or peer reviewed published materials measuring and quantifying the warming we are supposed to be causing and claiming it on our greenhouse gas production.

Now how can anyone claim to be more than 95% sure of anything when the basic scientific evidence required to support such a claim is missing?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Do you have a link explaining why you believe there would be wild swings in annual atmospheric CO2 levels over thousands of years?



Of course...you might start with the fact that science has claimed that volcanic activity produces little of the CO2 in the atmosphere...what the don't mention is that historically they have only counted the emissions from 6 or 8 known active volcanoes on the surface of the earth.  Science has recently become aware that there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of active volcanic vents scattered across the floor of the ocean...each and every one spewing CO2...we don't have any idea of the actual number, or how much CO2 they produce...so we have absolutely no idea how much CO2 is being emitted from the sea floor...or how variable it is.

We don't have a good handle on the earth's own CO2 making machinery...Climate science says that about 48% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from ocean / atmosphere exchanges, but that will change significantly as we begin to get a handle on how much CO2 is being emitted from volcanic vents on the sea bed...they claim that a bit more than 28% comes from animal / plant respiration...but that is a gross estimate at best....termites alone, produce more CO2 than human beings produce...a spike in termite populations alone could result in a great increase in CO2, in addition, as the earth warms, the amount of CO2 the oceans hold is reduced since warm water is able to hold less CO2 than cool water.....the also say that something more than 28% comes from soil respiration and decomposition of organic materials...but we have no idea how that number might change with warming temperatures...we know that decomposition is far more effective in warmer environments than it is in cooler environments so as the earth warms, decomposition becomes far more efficient and more CO2 is manufactures...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 that human beings produce isn't even enough to upset the changes from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


*Your link:*

"Globally, the past five years, from 2014 through 2018, all had record-breaking temperatures, with reports from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showing the hottest year ever as 2016, followed by 2017, 2015, 2018 and 2014."




"Some firefighters report flames 150 metres high...." 

"Higher than a 40 story building.

MR Online | Australia’s profit-driven apocalypse

"This is Australia’s new summer normal. 

"Towering flames and terrified humans, huddling on the beach in the dark night or the orange glow of day. 

"Shambolic, panicked, thousands forced to flee. 

"Cities and towns shrouded for days and weeks and now months in a smoke haze that ranges from irritating, to toxic, to deadly. 

"An area burnt that reportedly dwarfs the land affected by both the Amazon and California fires."

*Climate NOT weather.*


----------



## Redfish (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...




Interesting, so there have never been fires in Australia before?  How about California?  never in the past?   South america, first time ever?

what horseshit,   there have been seasonal fires since the beginning of time.   

But the ones this year in Australia might be different,  180 people have been arrested for arson.   most of them are like you AGW advocates trying to prove their lies by starting fires.  

your religion is a fraud.  Wake the fuck up.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





SSDD said:


> And what difference do you think that makes. CO2 was naturally hihjer without us than it is with us...what do you think that means or proves?


It could prove that human beings are incapable of existing at those historically higher CO2 levels, right?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


 You deniers have no logic.  "Oh it flooded before."  "Oh there were fires before."
 Blah Blah Blah.

It is the idea that these events happen more often and with more severity.

Climate Change is fucking science.

You mist haste your children and grandchildren.  Then can be no other explanation.  No one can be so stupid ass ignore it.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a link explaining why you believe there would be wild swings in annual atmospheric CO2 levels over thousands of years?
> ...


 Yet another fucking idiot denier.    No one claim man's emissions are higher than natural emissions.  

Human emissions pushes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere higher than te Earth removes it.  Man's emissions upset the balance.

That is a God damn fact.  Man is the primary case of the increase levels of CO2. That is a God damn fact.

You are not a scientist.  Quit listening to Trump & Limbaugh & give a shit about future generations.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain this?
> ...


  That must be it.  The scientists are against us & only the fucking moronic deniers can save us.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


*Do you have any evidence in support of that claim?*




Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 

"Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. 

"There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:

1) I know a 92 year old guy that smoked two packs a day since he was 16 & he does not have lung cancer.

2) My cousin Freddy died of lung cancer at 48 && he never smoked.

The climate change denier argument in a nutshell.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:
> 1) I know a 92 year old guy that smoked two packs a day since he was 16 & he does not have lung cancer.
> 2) My cousin Freddy died of lung cancer at 48 && he never smoked.
> The climate change denier argument in a nutshell.



Pick a point anywhere on the Earth's surface ... tell me what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... are all three the same? ... then climate isn't changing there ... do this for a million different points on the Earth's surface ... see, doesn't look like climate is changing anywhere ...

Yes, I'm relying on your complete and utter lack of knowledge in the basic science here that you're clueless as to which points to pick ... and even if you do by random chance find a point, you'll note the change is trivial ... arid climates becoming semi-arid, continental climates becoming sub-tropical ... and what changes there are will be beneficial to humans and their livestock ... 

Go ahead and drive a couple hours south, average temperatures will be 2ºC higher ... that's the sum total of global warming over the next 100 years ... unless you live north of Alabama, there's no crisis to be seen ... now is there? ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> It could prove that human beings are incapable of existing at those historically higher CO2 levels, right?


Great...let’s see the actual evidence that supports that claim..

we know that most life on earth had evolved pretty close to its present form by the time the ice age started...let’s see some evidence suggesting that we are some how excluded.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Yet another fucking idiot denier.    No one claim man's emissions are higher than natural emissions.



I never said such a thing.  Try reading for comprehension...or maybe get a literate adult to help you read if there is one with your circle of acquaintances.



RealDave said:


> Human emissions pushes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere higher than te Earth removes it.  Man's emissions upset the balance.



Here are several peer reviewed, published papers which say that claim is not true...Can you provide even one peer reviewed paper which even says that it is true...much less provides empirical evidence to support the claim?

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions*. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*.”








If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP:  *“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, *which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

*“*Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found *a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. *Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that *during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”*


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature






CLIP" 
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, *with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”*

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) *CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.*

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8)* Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.*







SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

*“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction *[ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. *The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”  




*


Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.



RealDave said:


> That is a God damn fact.  Man is the primary case of the increase levels of CO2. That is a God damn fact.



So you say...but that isn't what the peer reviewed, published science says.  But by all means, if you have some actual science, supported by actual empirical evidence that says that your claims are true, then lets see it.



RealDave said:


> You are not a scientist.  Quit listening to Trump & Limbaugh & give a shit about future generations.



And yet, I am providing actual peer reviewed, published science to support my claims...thus far, all you have done is blow smoke, call names, and pretend that profanity will make false claims true....typical of those who have been fooled by the pseudoscience.  Lets see the actual evidence to support your claims.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
> ...


*
*
Of course...the fact that neither you, nor all of climate science can produce anything that contradicts my claim is, in and of itself, evidence.  If such evidence existed, it would be inescapable..it would be everywhere...it would be the only argument that you believers would have to make....anytime a skeptic put up an argument, all you would have to do would be provide the empirical evidence that they are wrong and that would be the end of it.

You can't though.  You are reduced to making claims that aren't true...you blow smoke, call names, curse a lot, and employ several other methods...what you don't do is the obvious answer if such evidence existed...you don't provide it...and you don't because you can't...because no such evidence exists.



RealDave said:


> "The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2



Sorry..but they weren't...but feel free to provide the evidence if you like.  The scientists proved that water vapor could hold heat...but that is as far as they ever got..and as far as they ever could get because CO2 can not hold heat.  There is about a million hours of design, testing, development, and observation done by the residential and commercial infrared heating industry which shows pretty conclusively that far infrared radiation, which is what the earth emits, does not, and can not warm the air.



georgephillip said:


> "Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA.



Great...lets see the evidence.  Do you believe anything you hear without evidence just because it agrees with your politics?



georgephillip said:


> "There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."



Great...lets see the evidence.  Lets see a single piece of empirical evidence that supports that claim.  I predict no such piece of evidence will be forthcoming because no such piece of evidence exists...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:
> 
> 1) I know a 92 year old guy that smoked two packs a day since he was 16 & he does not have lung cancer.
> 
> ...



So far, I have provided peer reviewed, published science to support my claims...you have yet to provide the first piece of peer reviewed science to support yours...which of us is more credible?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> So far, I have provided peer reviewed, published science to support my claims...you have yet to provide the first piece of peer reviewed science to support yours...which of us is more credible?



Have you seen the movie _Jurassic Park_? ... in the beginning of that movie, they present a very accurate explanation of the peer-reviewed scientific paper that the movie is based on ... unfortunately, no one has been able to duplicate that experiment and get the same results ... one group extracted modern tuna DNA from Cretaceous amber, turns out one of the lab technicians has tuna for lunch and contaminated the sample ...

The paper has been withdrawn ...

"Peer-review" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

I know what peer review means. 

Which of the papers above was retracted? 

I also know what it means that global warming believers can’t provide any empirical evidence to support their claims.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> I know what peer review means.
> 
> Which of the papers above was retracted?
> 
> I also know what it means that global warming believers can’t provide any empirical evidence to support their claims.



Wait ... what? ... you believe _Jurassic Park_ is possible? ... say it ain't so ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

I think jurassic park is irrelavent...a non sequiter.


----------



## Markle (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Yet another fucking idiot denier. No one claim man's emissions are higher than natural emissions.
> 
> Human emissions pushes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere higher than te Earth removes it. Man's emissions upset the balance.
> 
> ...



What caused the Global Warming that enabled the Vikings to colonize Greenland to grow crops and herds of animals to resupply their ships on their way to North America?


----------



## Markle (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:
> 
> 1) I know a 92 year old guy that smoked two packs a day since he was 16 & he does not have lung cancer.
> 
> ...



*As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.  Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.  The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever.  Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.*

*14th February, 2010
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED! 

There has been no global warming since 1995 

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
*
Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be. 

WHAT????
[…]

*Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.*

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports.  It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws.  In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like _Science _and _Nature_. 

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative."  No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities.  But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken.  Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 16, 2020)

[smile] ... ok boomer ...


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

Markle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:
> ...


 Climategate was stupid people reacting to e-mails from smart people.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

oo


Markle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another fucking idiot denier. No one claim man's emissions are higher than natural emissions.
> ...


Are you referring to the Medieval warming period?  A localized event could have been caused by changes in solar activity to changes in ocean currents.


----------



## bluzman61 (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Please refer to post #279 in this thread.  Thank you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> oo
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> ...


Sorry guy. The medieval warm period shows up in ice cores taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic. Care to explain how a local event would show up in ice cores taken from both poles?

in addition I can provide you with peer reviewed published studies numbering the hundreds from regions all over the globe finding that the medieval warm. Was both warmer than the present and global in nature. 

Can you provide even one peer reviewed published paper which has not been retracted which claims that the medieval warm period was a local event and not global in nature.  That is just one more lie that climate science has promulgated.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:
> ...



Climate is not weather.  Do we know what the climate was 100 years ago, probably.  Do we know what is was a thousand years ago?  We have a good idea through geological & historical studies.  

I have knowledge, you have shit.

What happens when Nebraska can no longer grow wheat & corn like they can now?  Canada?

this 2 C rise will change where our food is grown.   It will change our coastlines.  It will change precipitation.

You sit there & declare this is irrelevant.  

What do you think it will cost in dollars to make all these changes?  Where will some areas get their water & food.  Will powerful nations  look at weaker nations because they now can grow food?  Will there be wars over this?  All buildings where the HVAC is designed for this climate will need changed.  Coastlines will need extensive work.

All will happen because ignorant people like you don't want to reduce emissions today.  I laugh at you because in most cases reducing emissions saves you money.  You would rather fund the fossil fuel industry than ensure a better future for your own children.  How fucked up is that?


----------



## bluzman61 (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Again, please refer to post #279 in this thread.  You're QUITE welcome.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > oo
> ...



Did the Medieval Warm Period welcome Vikings to Greenland?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

bluzman61 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



It is still stupid.  Were you expecting it to become more true with time?


----------



## bluzman61 (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Still AGAIN, please refer to post #279 in this thread.  Thank you VERY much.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You might be a bit better informed if you referred to actual science rather than opinion pieces.  Here is a temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core taken from...oddly enough...Greenland.  It is recognized by climate science as a gold standard temperature reconstruction.  And it clearly shows that Greenland, during the MWP was warmer than it is at present.







Now here is yet another gold standard temperature reconstruction...this one derived from the Vostok ice core taken in Antarctica...  It also shows that it was warmer during the medieval warm period than it is during the present...






Now you claimed that the MWP was a local event to northern europe...lets look at some peer reviewed papers which put that claim to the test.  Lets look about as far away from northern europe as we can get..  Just to be fair, you name the region of earth you would like to see a study from which indicates that it was warmer during the MWP than it is at present.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Did you even look at your own source before you offered it up as "proof" that Greenland wasn't warmer during the MWP?  Do you ever actually read anything?  Here...from your source...

However, *glacial moraines are not necessarily a reliable source of temperature data for this region, says William Patterson, a geochemist at the University of Saskatchewan* in Canada who was not involved in the new study. “*The problem … is that when it gets warmer in this part of the North Atlantic, you actually get more ice in some areas, including Greenland,” because there is more evaporation and increased snowfall,* he says. The observations of glacial advance in the new study might thus suggest that relatively warm temperatures had extended to Greenland by the time of the Vikings’ arrival.

*More reliable climate records for this part of the world are found in the growth rings of the shells of clams, *which can live 500 years and preserve temperature records over centuries, Patterson says. *Such records have previously shown a period of warming in Greenland beginning about 900, followed by periods of cooler summer temperatures starting about 1100. In Patterson’s estimation, the Vikings arrived in Greenland “when things were good, but shortly after [that], things went bad. The Norse depended on livestock, and when summer temperatures dropped by a couple degrees, that meant less fodder for the animals and often famine.”
*
Few human remains dating to the time of the Viking abandonment of Greenland have been found, but archaeological evidence points to at least four episodes of extreme hunger while they were there, with people eating dogs and livestock, all the way down to hides and hooves, Patterson says. “They ate everything they could possibly eat, and then they left Greenland” in the early 1400s, he says.

The Gold standard ice core temperature reconstructions say that your opinion piece is wrong...


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  Sorry, but you really need to quit believing the deniers.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


You're not getting the money no matter how many names you can call folks...besides, I already did my part when I stopped the next ice age in the 70's and sewed up the hole in the ozone in the 90's that was going to kill us with UV Rays, what have you done?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another fucking idiot denier.    No one claim man's emissions are higher than natural emissions.
> ...



Your sources are just denier shit.  I post from NASA & you claim they are part of a conspiracy.  I'll take NASA.  You stick with your right wing, fossil fuel backed clan.

I trust that you have no children.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Smoking tobacco does not cause cancer because:
> 
> 1) I know a 92 year old guy that smoked two packs a day since he was 16 & he does not have lung cancer.
> 
> ...







"The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 

*"Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. *

"Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. 5"

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

*Anecdotal evidence isn't something NASA relies on, and it's hard to imagine they would have a greater incentive to lie than the fossil fuel parasites and their government enablers.*


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

Frankeneinstein said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



I don't want your money.   How would fighting cliumate change take your money?

The 70's ice age crap was one scientist whose work was debunked.  But hey, keep using it as an excuse for your ignorance & ealfishness.

The Ozone was a problem.  Scientists & government got together & came up with a remedy. 

Acid rain was a problem that was solved by a cap & trade program that is still in effect.

Now we have an emissions problem & stupids fucks like you are too stupid to act.

What did I do?   I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.  
I tossed by oil burning furnace & put in geothermal HVAC.

I cut my carbon footprint in half.  And I save money everyday from it.


----------



## Markle (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


----------



## Markle (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I don't want your money. How would fighting cliumate change take your money?


----------



## Markle (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Now we have an emissions problem & stupids fucks like you are too stupid to act.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > It could prove that human beings are incapable of existing at those historically higher CO2 levels, right?
> ...





SSDD said:


> Great...let’s see the actual evidence that supports that claim..
> 
> we know that most life on earth had evolved pretty close to its present form by the time the ice age started...let’s see some evidence suggesting that we are some how excluded.


*Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the following*?




"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years, based on EPICA (ice core) data. 

"The peaks and valleys in carbon dioxide levels track the coming and going of ice ages (low carbon dioxide) and warmer interglacials (higher levels). 

"Throughout these cycles, atmospheric carbon dioxide  was never higher than 300 ppm; in 2018, it reached 407.4 ppm (black dot). NOAA Climate.gov, based on EPICA Dome C data (Lüthi, D., et al., 2008) provided by NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov

*"In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today."*


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I don't want your money. How would fighting cliumate change take your money?


I didn't say my money, but without the rewording your claim would be an obvious lie instead of lie you can deny



> The 70's ice age crap was one scientist whose work was debunked.


It was taught in school, seen on television, read in newspapers and propagandized by folks just like you...
 if one guy could fool everyone like that imagine how easy it wold be to fool folks like you if the snake oil salemen claimed that more than one scientist is making that claim....some day this scam will be debunked as well



> But hey, keep using it as an excuse for your ignorance & ealfishness.


if your not after my money what is so selfish about it?



> The Ozone was a problem. Scientists & government got together & came up with a remedy.


yeah, OK, just like the ice age...who paid the scientists?...this falls under the heading of "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"



> Acid rain was a problem that was solved by a cap & trade program that is still in effect.


another scam, cap and trade was an economic plan that the left could not refute as an answer which is why "a hole in the ozone" became necessary


> Now we have an emissions problem & stupids fucks like you are too stupid to act.


an emissions problem was the reason given for the ice age in the 70's which everyone knows was debunked...



> What did I do? I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
> I tossed by oil burning furnace & put in geothermal HVAC.


There are still neighborhoods who have homes with solar panels from the 70's/80's on their roofs...they were just doing they're part...the "greenies" have cried wolf too many times, they are not to be trusted, you want to buy green go for it, those who don't should also go for it...but no money[/quote]


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


May be CO_2 is an important greenhouse gas. May be not. 
But H_2O (water vapour) is, at least, twice more important. Can you show us any scientific research about changing in its emission as a result of human activity?


----------



## Markle (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> What did I do? I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
> I tossed by oil burning furnace & put in geothermal HVAC.
> 
> I cut my carbon footprint in half. And I save money everyday from it.



GOOD FOR YOU!

So what?  Your choice, not mine!

I'm old and decrepit but I still enjoy starting up my '66 Goat that I bought in 1969.  I totally refurbished it about 15 years ago.  A company that rebuilds engines for NASCAR rebuilt the engine and boosted it up to 521 hp, beefed-up 4-speed transmission, and rear end.  I do love the way it rumbles and the looks I especially kids, when I roll-up.  Nope, it does not get 18 mpg.

Do I NEED it?  Heck no!  What 75-year-old codger NEEDS a 500+ hp hotrod?  I probably don't NEED my Cadillac or Harley either, but I WANT them and I still enjoy them.

Enjoy squeezing into your Prius and I'll continue to try avoiding sucking them into one of the three carburetors while it idles at the stoplight!


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

Markle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > What did I do? I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
> ...


Your ignorance about the Prius is amusing.

Fucking over your Grandkids.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
Why does a worthless uneducated fool like you think you know more than NASA?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Stop alright, nobody is buying your pathetic sob story...you're exactly the definition of a white liberal, no one wants anything to do with you or your latest "sky is falling" cries of doom so you lash out and demand they do as you say.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

Markle said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Now we have an emissions problem & stupids fucks like you are too stupid to act.


2017 numbers.  Your fat assed Piece of shit Trump has ended our reductions in emissions.  They are now increasing.

Look at emissions per capita.   You fools run in circles screaming about China yet their emissions per person are less than half of ours.

Developing countries should be allowed to develop & this activity hides any effort to reduce.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

Frankeneinstein said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


  Don't let your ignorance condemn your grandchildren to a more difficult future.  Pull your head out of your ass & become better informed.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Don't let your ignorance condemn your grandchildren to a more difficult future.


In what way?




> Pull your head out of your ass & become better informed.



It was the "NO MONEY" thing wasn't it?


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Did I said, that I know more than NASA?
No. I said I know more, than environmentalistic propagandists tell to you. At least I've read wikipedia:
Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia

Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth. In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are:


Water vapor (H
2O)
Carbon dioxide (CO
2)
Methane (CH
4)
Nitrous oxide (N
2O)
Ozone (O
3)
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
Hydrofluorocarbons (includes HCFCs and HFCs)


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 16, 2020)

And yes, if you believe in the "terrible" conseqences of the "global warming" just read about Eemian epoche, when temperature was higher, and Greenland iceshield was melted.
Eemian - Wikipedia


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Do we have any real evidence that proves the past changes were due to small variations in earth’s orbit? Of course not.


*Where did you get that idea?*

Ice Ages - Dive & Discover

*"There are several natural forces that together lead to an ice age on Earth.*

"The answer lies in how the orbit of the Earth around the sun changes. 

"The average temperature on Earth depends on the Earth’s distance from the sun. 

"If the Earth were closer to the sun, it would be hotter; if the Earth were further away from the sun, it would be colder

"A Yugoslav astronomer, Milutin Milankovitch, learned how changes in Earth’s orbit can changes in climate to cause ice ages. 

"He studied three types of changes in Earth’s orbit: its shape, the tilt of the its axis, and the wobble of the its axis.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Your sources are just denier shit.  I post from NASA & you claim they are part of a conspiracy.  I'll take NASA.  You stick with your right wing, fossil fuel backed clan.
> 
> I trust that you have no children.



Sorry guy, but you are the one who is being duped.  The GISP ice core data is produced by the US National Science Foundation, The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Danish Commission for Scientific Research in Greenland.

Which of those agencies are you claiming to be right wing, fossil fuel backed clan?

The Vostock data was also produced by a collective of international climate scientists including members of the  Laboratoire de Glaciogie et Géophysique de l'Environnement,Arctic and Antarctic Research InstituteCNRS, and the Institute of Geography, Staromonetny..which of those are you claiming are right wing fossil fuel backed clansmen?

Between us, it is clearly you who is the denier....anything that challenges your preconceived belief, you deny...you claim it is from right wing, fossil fuel backed clans even when you have no idea who produced the data...

So denier...which of those are backed by fossil fuel clansmen and lets see your evidence...


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Sure. If you ignore role of the water vapour (and clouds, and many other factors), and believe in any sort of psedo-scientific nonsense, those environmentalistic crooks will steal your money and condemn your grandchildren to the much more difficult future.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I don't want your money.   How would fighting cliumate change take your money?



You really are uninformed aren't you?  Everything you purchase costs more than it otherwise would if not for the fake climate crisis.



RealDave said:


> The Ozone was a problem.  Scientists & government got together & came up with a remedy.



As I already pointed out to you...there never was an ozone crisis...I gave you the facts and asked you a question which you ran away from...lets try again...will you run away again?

There is not, and never has been an ozone crisis... It was just pseudoscience aimed at people who are prone to panic. You claim to be logical...so apply some logic to this and answer the question...

CFC molecules are found in the ozone layer at a concentration of about 3 parts per BILLION...that is billion with a B...NO is a naturally occurring catalyst for ozone and just as reactive to ozone as any CFC molecule and it is found in the ozone layer at a concentration of about 5 to 7 parts per million...Nitrogen, is a natural reactant to ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 750,000 parts per million. 

Now combine those facts with the fact that at an altitude of 20Km, the life span of an ozone molecule is about 1000 seconds...and at 32Km, the life span of an ozone molecule is about 4200 seconds.

OK...you have a CFC molecule present at a concentration of 3 parts per billion, which can react with ozone in the same way as naturally occurring NO...and any given ozone molecule is going to have a life span of between 16 and 70 minutes....what are the chances of a CFC molecule which is present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION, encountering a single ozone molecule (much less wantonly destroying them in their millions as the pseudoscience would lead you to believe) which is present at a concentration of about 10 parts per million in the 16 to 70 minute span that any given ozone molecule exists before it naturally breaks apart? 

Apply your logic to those facts and tell me how you believe CFC's ever represented a threat to the ozone layer...



RealDave said:


> Acid rain was a problem that was solved by a cap & trade program that is still in effect.



Is there any pseudoscientific claptrap that you won't believe?  Lets see the empirical evidence to support your claim.


----------



## Markle (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Your ignorance about the Prius is amusing.
> 
> Fucking over your Grandkids.



I know Prius is a fine chick car.  What else do I need to know?

How am I f****** over my grandkids?  Or their kids?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Climate is not weather.  Do we know what the climate was 100 years ago, probably.  Do we know what is was a thousand years ago?  We have a good idea through geological & historical studies.
> 
> I have knowledge, you have shit.
> 
> ...



Outrageous ... climate is average weather ... or as NOAA puts it "climate is what we expect, weather is what we get" ...

Corn and wheat grow in Texas ... corn and wheat grow in Minnesota ... Nebraska will be able to grow corn and wheat up until Yellowstone erupts again ... there's nothing about 2ºC that changes any of that ... have you ever grown corn, have you ever grown wheat? ... does a 100 miles north or south change any of that? ... 

*It will change precipitation.*

You claim to have knowledge, so here's my question: what causes precipitation? ... there's a very specific answer to this, and is singularly the most basic question in all of atmospheric science ... nothing you've posted leads me to believe you know the answer, as simple as the answer is ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.


9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

*"So what's the evidence?*
The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:


Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)

Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)

Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions [URL='http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-1-3.html'](research beginning in 1930s)

Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)
[/URL]


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yes, there is ample reason to doubt that your graph is of any practical use. Since the 19th century more than 90,000 chemical analysis tests were done to test the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  Those chemical tests were far more accurate than any testing we do today as they would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming.  They found daily CO2 concentrations even higher than the present.  So yes, there is valid reason to not assume that your graph is an accurate representation.






The graph you provide has a maximum resolution of hundreds, perhaps thousands of years and as a result, is of minimal use for determining what the CO2 conentration for any given year might have been...in addition, a great deal of data that didn't agree with a CO2 concentration that had already been agreed on was thrown out.

The chemical tests above show concentrations on particular days...the resolution is in hours, not hundreds of years...and they are far more accurate than any measurements we use today.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Got any empirical evidence to support your climate claims?  Of course you don't...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Any empirical evidence to support your claims?  Of course not...it is all smoke...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do we have any real evidence that proves the past changes were due to small variations in earth’s orbit? Of course not.
> ...



And we are just beginning to understand how changes in the sun's output in particular frequencies affects our climate...we know so little about what actually drives the climate that it is bald faced malfeasance to claim that the science of climate is settled..


----------



## westwall (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...








Correlation does not equal causation.   A scientific axiom that anti science deniers hate.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Can you name a period in the history of the earth when the climate wasn't changing? So satellites verify that the climate changes...so what? It has always been changing and the bit of change we have seen is very small compared to past changes


*Why do you make ridiculous claims like that without providing any evidence?*

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. 

"Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. 

*"This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3*"

*"The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling..."*


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...




Who said we don't produce CO2?




georgephillip said:


> Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)



I have provided peer reviewed published papers stating that the amount of CO2 we produce is hardly detectable from the noise of the earth's own CO2 making machinery.  I can't help but note that you have produced no peer reviewed published science challenging any of those papers.




georgephillip said:


> Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)



Untrue.  From the 1800's to 2004 more than 90,000 chemical analyses of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere have been done...they show CO2 levels higher than the present.  And chemical analyses are far more accurate than the tests presently being done.





georgephillip said:


> analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)



It has been demonstrated that isotopes are of little use in determining where CO2 came from as CO2 emitted from volcanic activity is indistinguishable from CO2 emitted from CO2...and it has recently been learned that there may be upwards of a million undersea volcanic vents spewing CO2 that have not been considered by climate science...


georgephillip said:


> Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)[quote]
> 
> Yep...we know that because of the absorption spectra.  We also know that because of the emission spectra that any energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is immediately emitted...nothing is trapped..if it were, it would show up on the emission spectra.
> 
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Very little energy transfers through the troposphere via radiation...the vast bulk of energy movement through the troposphere is via conduction and convection.....but again, fee free to provide any empirical evidence demonstrating any "heat trapping" ability of CO2..


Why aren't you providing evidence for your claims?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> "Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels.



Actually what those ice cores show is that CO2 levels respond to changes in the earth's climate...Science has known for quite some time that there is a lag between 100 and 1000 years between changes in temperature and changes in CO2...which always follow...primarily due to the fact that changes in temperature can have profound effects on the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Propagandists rarely mention that fact when pointing out correlation between temperature and CO2...if they did, they would be scientists and not propagandists.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To date, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.
> ...


It is fine, but what about most important greenhouse gas - water vapour and human role in its emission? 
You know, if a researcher intentionally ignore "undesirable" facts, he is not a "researcher", but a "charlatan".


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Very little energy transfers through the troposphere via radiation...the vast bulk of energy movement through the troposphere is via conduction and convection.....but again, fee free to provide any empirical evidence demonstrating any "heat trapping" ability of CO2..
> ...


Your inability to provide any empirical evidence challenging my statements is evidence...If there were such evidence, it would be inescapable..it would be everywhere...and yet you can't produce any of it...not a single shred.  You can't because there is none..


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Can you name a period in the history of the earth when the climate wasn't changing? So satellites verify that the climate changes...so what? It has always been changing and the bit of change we have seen is very small compared to past changes
> ...


Are you sure?
Eemian - Wikipedia
--------------------
Sea level at peak was probably 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today,[17][18] with Greenland contributing 0.6 to 3.5 m (2.0 to 11.5 ft),[19] thermal expansion and mountain glaciers contributing up to 1 m (3.3 ft),[20] and an uncertain contribution from Antarctica.[21] Recent research on marine sediment cores offshore of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet suggest that the sheet melted during the Eemian, and that ocean waters rose as fast as 2.5 meters per century.
-----------------------

Between 1900 and 2016, the sea level rose by 16–21 cm (6.3–8.3 in)


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> here is no question...but then there is no evidence to support the claim...if you believe there is, by all means, lets see it.


*You believe there's no evidence of increased levels of greenhouse gases causing the earth's temperature to increase?*




"Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures. 

"The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence). 

"The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined. 

"The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures. 

"The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."

Global Climate Change Indicators | Monitoring References |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> What did I do?   I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
> I tossed by oil burning furnace & put in geothermal HVAC.
> 
> I cut my carbon footprint in half.  And I save money everyday from it.



I'm afraid I'm going to have to condone you for this ... and in some of the other posts you've made actually suggest solutions ... _fucking cool_ you've access to geothermal, the hydro I have here is amazing ... I work construction, my rig gets 26 mpg, and I can haul full sheets of plywood easily ... I fill up once a month whether I need to or not ... I vacation locally to avoid airline travel ... but I eat meat every meal, and I'm ashamed of that ...

There's lots of better reasons to curtail fossil fuel use ... starting with it's limited supply ... we'll run out of cheap oil, and then we'll have to burn expensive oil ... the time to start switching over is now, or maybe it was 40 years ago, back when we had to wait three hours in a gas line to buy 5 gallons of gas ...

Saving money is an _excellent_ measure of saving the universe ... none better for the average person ... starting with your internet bill ...


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > here is no question...but then there is no evidence to support the claim...if you believe there is, by all means, lets see it.
> ...


How many greenhouse gases were counted in this "model"? How do they count forestation caused by hunters and deforestation, caused by farmers? 
How do they count changes in the ocean absorbation ability, caused, for example, by the wide usage of fertilizers?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 16, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



georgephillips' citation is dated Feb 6th, 2020 ... it's only Jan 16th in my time zone ... very strange ... maybe we're using a different calendar here on the West Coast ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2020)

Redfish said:


> But the ones this year in Australia might be different, 180 people have been arrested for arson. most of them are like you AGW advocates trying to prove their lies by starting fires.


*Would you say Australia's fossil fueled capitalists qualify as the arsonist's accomplices?*




MR Online | Australia’s profit-driven apocalypse

"We see firefighters making do with pathetic paper masks, while the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).

"We see a military which can mobilise massive force to defend oil and empire in the Middle East, and to capture refugees from those wars and deliver them to an island prison–but is apparently incapable of moving a civilian population to safety with anything approaching urgency.

"We see a political and economic elite that can’t wrench itself away from the industries that have created this disaster. 

*"Six of the 30 biggest corporations on Australia’s stock exchange are mining or fossil fuel companies–probably a world record. Coal is 15 percent of export revenues*. 

"Australia’s ruling class is one of the most carbon-addicted sections of a global elite that has always valued power and profit above our planet and our lives."


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 You show a graph & attach your analysis.

Sorry, but I'll take NASA over a internet fool like you.your


----------



## RealDave (Jan 16, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What determines our climate is complicated with any possible factors.

That does not change that we are experiencing climate change that is primarily due to man made emissions/.

You think scientists are stupid & don;t know about other factors? NASA did not consider orbits or solar cycles or volcanoes or deforestation or what ever orther stupid excuse you use to be stupid.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Sorry, but I'll take NASA over a internet fool like you.



This is the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority" ... of course in all things aerodynamic engineering and space travel, we should consult NASA's extensive expertise ... there's none better in the whole world ... but if the question is of the atmosphere and the oceans, then we should consult NOAA ... 

Truth be told, NASA _does not_ have an extensive network of instruments ... and relies wholly on NOAA's network ... and generally speaking, those who study the weather hold a more conservative scientific position in this matter than those who build rockets ... 

I know I know I know ... my vet provides me with better health care than my doctor as well ... but do you see my point? ...


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 16, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


I think those pseudo-scientists do know about other factors. I'm pretty sure that they know how important those factors are. But they are not interested in the telling you about it. They are interested in the raising of hysteria, and making excuses for additional bureaucratic control of the fuel markets.
If you are ready to believe charlatans - it is your problem.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 16, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > But the ones this year in Australia might be different, 180 people have been arrested for arson. most of them are like you AGW advocates trying to prove their lies by starting fires.
> ...



*the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).*

Writing off business expenses, how horrible!!!!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I have knowledge, you have shit.



So far, you haven't demonstrated it.  So far, you have provided opinion pieces as if they were science and have denied and rejected actual science that didn't support your beliefs.  When do we start seeing this knowledge you claim to have?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> "Global climate models clearly show the effect of human-induced changes on global temperatures.



This may come as a surprise to you...but climate models are not empirical evidence...Here is some information based on empirical evidence regarding our CO2 and earth's temperature...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE






Clearly there is no correlation between our yearly production of CO2 and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature


















All of those graphs are based on empirical evidence...not climate models which have been and continue to be spectacular failures.




georgephillip said:


> "The blue band shows how global temperatures would have changed due to natural forces only (without human influence).



According to the model...which is not empirical evidence..



georgephillip said:


> "The pink band shows model projections of the effects of human and natural forces combined.



According to the model...which is not empirical evidence...



georgephillip said:


> "The black line shows actual observed global average temperatures.



Observed temperatures are empirical evidence...the rest is not based in reality....



georgephillip said:


> "The close match between the black line and the pink band indicates that observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors alone, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."



Do you see how wide that pink line is?  It represents the margin of error in the model.  More than 1 degree...the margin of error is greater than the total amount of change we have seen over the past 100 years...and that model is the result of constant tweaking in an effort to keep it at least in the same ball park as observation...the models are tweaked multiple times per year as they continue to deviate from reality.  Models are not evidence of any kind other than the willingness of climate science to attempt to fool you.

So no...you have, as I said, no empirical evidence to support your beliefs...I, on the other hand have loads of actual observed, measured empirical evidence to support my position.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > What did I do?   I drive a prius & get 45t MPG instead of my pickup that got 18.
> ...



When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil...the market will provide that alternative...but not until a genuine profit motive exists.  The best and brightest aren't after government subsidies...nor do they work for the government...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Still no empirical evidence to support your claims...that nasa opinion piece was not peer reviewed..it was produced by someone whose paycheck depends on a climate crisis...if there were no climate crisis, nasa would only be getting money for space study and exploration...not climate and whoever wrote the piece would be out of a job...

You aren't very discerning in where your information comes from...I provided links to the peer reviewed, published studies and the clip from the studies I also provided was not my analysis..they were cut and paste directly from the study.  You really are terribly uninformed...aren't you.  You can't even look at actual scientific papers and recognize them as such.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 Look, you post stats & make up your own analysis,  Sorry but why would anyone believe a hack like you instead of NASA>  You don't like my posts, call NASA & argue with them since you think you know more than they do.  And then  STFU.  I am, tied of you lying & running on circles demanding I post a research paper.  Really, assfuck just shut the fuck up & concentrate on finding a way to ruin YOUR children's future without affecting mine.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


  So,  you thionk the fossil fuel industry gets mo subsidies?

So, we should remove all taxes on cigarettes because it is government trying to steer people away from smoking?  
 There are lots of stupid people who still smoke & who still drink & drive and are climate change deniers.     Regardless of the statistics & scientific evidence, you continue to do this stupid shit.

AGW is science.  Why are you so afraid of it?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


  It is far more than that.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Truth be told, NASA _does not_ have an extensive network of instruments ... and relies wholly on NOAA's network ... and generally speaking, those who study the weather hold a more conservative scientific position in this matter than those who build rockets ...


*How did you arrive at that conclusion?*

Global Climate Change Indicators | Monitoring References |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

*"How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?*

"A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. 

"This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. 

"The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. 

"The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years."


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).*
> 
> Writing off business expenses, how horrible!!!!







‘They are pissing inside the tent’: Rupert Murdoch’s son slams Fox News and his dad's other climate-denying media


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Look, you post stats & make up your own analysis,  Sorry but why would anyone believe a hack like you instead of NASA>  You don't like my posts, call NASA & argue with them since you think you know more than they do.  And then  STFU.  I am, tied of you lying & running on circles demanding I post a research paper.  Really, assfuck just shut the fuck up & concentrate on finding a way to ruin YOUR children's future without affecting mine.



I'm still waiting for you to post anything that would allow me to believe you have any knowledge of the subject at hand ... I see you can cherry-pick information, string that information together and make it look like you understand something ... but in the end, you're just grinding someone else's axe ... you seem to have no axe of your own ...

I'm guessing you're young, as you seem to have great difficulty comprehending the time scales involved ... your children and grandchildren are safe from the effects of climate change ... it's your great-great-grandchildren and great-great-great-grandchildren who will see these effects ... and they won't notice ... these changes take place over centuries, a single human doesn't live long enough ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil.


Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?

Politics of global warming - Wikipedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I know, it's giving cheaper fuel to the poor.

Just awful!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *the government gifts $12 billion every year to fossil fuel companies ($29 billion if you count indirect subsidies).*
> ...



No fires before we started using fossil fuels, eh comrade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil.
> ...



*Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?*

Because that's how economics works.

Marxists are really, really bad at economics, so your confusion was expected.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




human beings are polluting the earth's air and water.   There is no scientific proof that that pollution is causing the earth's climate to change.   

my question is this:  everyone wants an unpolluted planet to live on,  why isn't fighting pollution enough for you lefties?   Why must you insist on a false link between pollution and climate?

If there was a direct link, where was it in the previous cooling and warming periods when there were no humans on earth?

I think I know the answer,   because this religion of yours is not about climate or pollution, its about finding a way to control the lives and actions of everyone on earth.  your movement is a political movement, not a scientific movement.   Your prophet Algore said that by now there would be no ice at the poles and that Florida and much of the east coast would be under water.   Was he lying or was he simply wrong?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil.


Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?


SSDD said:


> Clearly there is no correlation between our yearly production of CO2 and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere


There's no shortage of empirical evidence proving human-generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up:




_"Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring._

*"The Smoking Gun*

"The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. 

"CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths.  In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:




_"Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006)._

"The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). 

"But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: *most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

"Summing Up*
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

"Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

"The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. 
*
"The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because that's how economics works.


That's how capitalism works.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




so tell us exactly what you want all of us to do to "save the earth and the children".  Give us specific things that every human on earth must do to prevent the great flood when the polar ice melts and the land is overrun with evil H2O.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Because that's how economics works.
> ...




that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil.
> ...



all plant life needs CO2 to survive,  so why are we not seeing a huge increase in plant life if your "theories" are correct.  and no matter how many charts you post, they are theories, not evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Because that's how economics works.
> ...



Same thing.

Marxists just don't get it.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




georgie thinks this is funny.  so tell us, georgie, where has socialism ever worked in the history of the world.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.


Russia was one of the least developed, poorest countries on the planet in 1917. 72 years later it was one of two global superpowers in spite of participating in two world wars fought in its homeland and a revolution. Which economic system gets the credit, socialism or capitalism?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgie thinks this is funny. so tell us, georgie, where has socialism ever worked in the history of the world.







Capitalism FAIL | Future Economy Blog


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.
> ...



* 72 years later it was one of two global superpowers *

And yet, economically, still an also ran.

* Which economic system gets the credit, socialism or capitalism?*

Socialism definitely gets the credit for Russia's shitty economy.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 17, 2020)

Ok. There is an interesting article about empirical evidence of climate change in last two millenia.
Climate-forced sea-level lowstands in the Indian Ocean during the last two millennia.

-----------------------------------
*Climate-forced sea-level lowstands in the Indian Ocean during the last two millennia*

Paul S. Kench, 
Roger F. McLean, 
Keven Roy 
_Nature Geoscience_ volume 13, pages61–64(2020)Cite this article


1077 Accesses


205 Altmetric


Metricsdetails

*Abstract*
Sea-level reconstructions over the past two millennia provide a pre-industrial context to assess whether the magnitude and rate of modern sea-level change is unprecedented. Sea-level records from the Indian Ocean over the past 2,000 years are sparse, while records from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans show variations less than 0.25 m and no significant negative excursions. Here, we present evidence of two low sea-level phases in the Maldives, Indian Ocean, based on fossil coral microatolls. Microatoll growth is constrained by low water levels and, consequently, they are robust recorders of past sea level. U–Th dating of the Maldivian corals identified lowstands at AD 234–605 and AD 1481–1807 when sea level fell to maximum depths of −0.88 m and −0.89 m respectively. These lowstands are synchronous with reductions in radiative forcing and sea surface temperature associated with the Late Antiquity Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age. Our results provide high-fidelity observations of lower sea levels during these cool periods and show rates of change of up to 4.24 mm yr−1. Our data also confirm the acceleration of relative sea-level rise over the past two centuries and suggest that the current magnitude and rate of sea-level rise is not unprecedented.
------------------------------------


"current magnitude and rate of sea-level rise is not unprecedented" - it means, that there were "global warmings" and "global coolings" even in the preindustrial age.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.
> ...




Russia and China are successful today because they allowed capitalism to operate within their economic systems.  But I wonder why we don't see any americans moving to Russia or China.   Can you explain that since you think they are such wonderful places to live?


----------



## Redfish (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > georgie thinks this is funny. so tell us, georgie, where has socialism ever worked in the history of the world.
> ...




Lets see those same stats for China, Russia, Indonesia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, most African countries.   Put up or shut up.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Still waiting for Georgie or one of the other members of the AGW religion to answer this simple question.   Lets hear from you,  OR, you can admit that your religion of man made climate change is a fraud


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> Still waiting for Georgie or one of the other members of the AGW religion to answer this simple question.   Lets hear from you,  OR, you can admit that your religion of man made climate change is a fraud



We're all waiting for you to answer my simple question ... what causes precipitation? ... you claimed this is changing, but it appears you don't know why it forms in the first place ... you also claimed you have knowledge and I have shit ... c'mon now ... answer up ... let's see how deep your knowledge goes ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> Lets see those same stats for China, Russia, Indonesia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, most African countries. Put up or shut up







"The dominant economic system on Earth is apparently just one reason some people are rich and some are poor.

"The other reasons must be those invisible reallocation pixies that come in the night to transfer wealth to the haves, like reverse Robin Hoods."

Capitalism FAIL | Future Economy Blog

"Financial disparity is a problem in many ways that are getting lots of deserved attention lately, but I’d have to say the abject poverty that capitalism keeps much of the world in by depriving it of a sensible system for allocating basic goods and services to those most in need (instead sending them to those most able to pay), is a much bigger problem than the wealth gap."


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> Still waiting for Georgie or one of the other members of the AGW religion to answer this simple question. Lets hear from you, OR, you can admit that your religion of man made climate change is a fraud


The first thing you could do to slow global climate change is to stop voting for gold plated pathological liars:




Did Trump say climate change was a Chinese hoax?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> So,  you thionk the fossil fuel industry gets mo subsidies?



Guess you don't know the difference between tax breaks and subsidies....chalk up one more thing you don't know.



RealDave said:


> AGW is science.  Why are you so afraid of it?



If that's the case, why is it that you don't seem to be able to post up any actual science?  You post up a misleading chart from NASA and believe it is science and reject actual peer reviewed, published science which calls your NASA opinion into question.  It is you who seems to be afraid of science...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> "A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming.



So why don't you seem to be able to post up any actual science to support the claim?  You post up opinion pieces like real dave and call them science, and apparently reject peer reviewed, published papers like realdave as well...



georgephillip said:


> "This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies.



I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...so much for your "evidence" accumulated over several decades and hundreds of studies...imagine that...hundreds of studies and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....what kind of science is that?



georgephillip said:


> "The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.



Greenhouse gasses don't trap heat.  If they did, then first, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...the smoking gun that climate science predicted that would prove their hypothesis...it never showed up....there is no upper tropospheric hot spot...that would have been the top of your greenhouse...a greenhouse with no roof isn't a greenhouse at all.  Second, if greenhouse gasses trapped heat, then the amount of long wave infrared radiation escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere would be decreasing as CO2 and other greenhouse gasses increase...the long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere is increasing with the increase of greenhouse gases and haas been for a good long time now...again, exactly the opposite of what the hypothesis predicts.

Two predictive failures right there.  In real science, do you know what happens to a hypothesis which experiences a predictive failure?  It is either tossed out, or heavily modified in order to not experience future predictive failures.  Most often it is tossed out and work begins on a more workable hypothesis.  In the case of the AGW hypothesis, the only changes that were made was to steadily increase the margin of error so that as the models drifted ever further from reality they could still claim that the predictions were within the margin of error.  That isn't science..that is pseudoscience...in science a predictive failure gets the hypothesis tossed out as unworkable...in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are tolerated so long as the funding continues.



georgephillip said:


> The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years."



And those estimates tell us that with the exception of the little ice age, which the earth is still warming out of, it is colder now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > When there is a genuine profit motive for developing an alternative to oil.
> ...



You may not realize this but that is how economics work.  Government never produces innovation...that comes from the private sector and it comes when there is a profit motive.

And we aren't addicted to fossil fuels...we use them because they are abundant, and less expensive than the alternatives....when that changes, then the private sector will provide an alternative in very short order...and at a considerable profit.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?



See my previous post



georgephillip said:


> There's no shortage of empirical evidence proving human-generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up:



Great...lets see some empirical evidence proving that human generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up.  This may surprise you, but to date, there has not been a single peer reviewed paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses...since no such paper exists, exactly where does all this evidence "proving" that we are causing the earth to warm up reside...don't you think there would be at least one published paper on the topic if such evidence existed?

_


georgephillip said:



			"Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.
		
Click to expand...


Sorry guy...your graph is nothing more than an exercise in curve fitting..it doesn't show anything like our year to year emissions...it has all been smoothed in order to create an impression....if you want to see our actual CO2 emissions vs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere year to year, look at the graphs I provided above which are all from peer reviewed, published literature_

*


georgephillip said:



			"The Smoking Gun
		
Click to expand...

*


georgephillip said:


> "The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature.
> 
> "CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths.  In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
> 
> ...


_
Sorry guy, but that is not evidence that CO2 is causing anything...that is nothing more than an absorption spectrum which shows pretty clearly that CO2 only absorbs in a very small portion of the infrared spectrum emitted by earth..and it only shows half the picture...that shows the absorption spectrum...there is an emission spectrum which goes with that which shows that all that radiation absorbed by  all the so called greenhouse gasses is immediately emitted...nothing is held back, nothing is blocked, nothing is trapped..it is absorbed and emitted...

Now there is one gas that can absorb and retain energy, but your graph doesn't show it...wonder why?  That gas would be H2O...or water vapor...and your pseudoscientific graph leaves it out because it completely dominates the infrared spectrum rendering CO2 impotent...and unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses, H2O can actually retain the energy it absorbs.
_





"The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20).



georgephillip said:


> "But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: *most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2."*



As you can see, H2O completely dominates CO2...and again, your graph is an absorption spectrum...it isn't an emission spectrum...an emission spectrum would show that all the energy being absorbed by CO2 is then immediately emitted on to space...although, CO2 generally doesn't actually get to emit any radiation at all.

But that isn't really the entire story either...the fact is that it is estimated that about 8% of the energy emitted from the surface of the earth actually radiates through the troposphere...the rest is moved via convection and conduction...which means that a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science simply is not possible...which explains why you are unable to provide any empirical evidence of it.  Here is an email exchange between Dr William Happer...you may have heard of him...he is a physicist who resides on the very top shelf of scientists in his field, which is atomic physics, optics, and spectrometry...

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education






Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]

Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]



georgephillip said:


> * Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming*



You provide a link to skeptical science and call it evidence...are you kidding?  Do tell..which part of that do you believe to be empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming...feel free to cut and paste.



georgephillip said:


> *"Summing Up*
> Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.



That isn't what the observation shows...observation shows that more energy is escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere as the amount of greenhouse gasses increases..Your hypothesis fails right out of the gate...you have been lied to and tricked.  Why is that so hard to admit when the observed, measured evidence proves it beyond question?















georgephillip said:


> Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.



Since the observations show us that energy is not being trapped, and in fact the amount of energy leaving the earth is increasing, your point is meaningless...your mechanism is non existent...the argument is based on a lie...



georgephillip said:


> Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.



Again..the observations show precisely the opposite of what you are claiming...outgoing radiation is not decreasing...it is increasing..and has been for a good long time.



georgephillip said:


> And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.



Brilliant deduction...except it is completely wrong...again...the observations show that the amount of energy exiting the earth that the top of the atmosphere is increasing...and there is no upper tropospheric hot spot which would be inevitable if energy were being trapped by so called greenhouse gasses...your case is built on assumptions which observation proves to be wrong..



georgephillip said:


> The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime.



Yet another pointless point...Since your whole case is based on flawed information...there is not and never was a crime....
*
*


georgephillip said:


> * "The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."*



The investigation is an abject failure proven wrong by simple observation...do you suppose there might be a reason why your "detective" didn't provide you with the actual observations to support his case...they were all available...of course he didn't because his whole case would have failed as he tried to make his first point as the observations show clearly that energy is not being trapped in the atmosphere...the amount of energy exiting the atmosphere is increasing...precisely the opposite of what your hypothesis predicts...yet another predictive failure..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.
> ...



they starved millions and stole billions in the process...when the loot ran out, they began to fail...and ended in abject failure...


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming.
> ...


 Blh blah blah.  Your analysis is worthless.  

Where did you get your degree in climatology?


When we post from people like NASA you lie about them.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?
> ...


 Fake analysis from a denier.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > So,  you thionk the fossil fuel industry gets mo subsidies?
> ...


  I am not a climatologist.  I have degrees inb science.  I read lot & trust certain scientists.

Ummmm should I believe NASA or a stupid fuck lying piece of shit like you?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Ok. There is an interesting article about empirical evidence of climate change in last two millenia.
> Climate-forced sea-level lowstands in the Indian Ocean during the last two millennia.
> 
> -----------------------------------
> ...


 Jesus Fuck.

Who said that CO2 man made emission was the ONLY way to change the Climate.

You deniers are just too fuclkng stupid to be alive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?
> ...



*there is an emission spectrum which goes with that which shows that all that radiation absorbed by all the so called greenhouse gasses is immediately emitted...nothing is held back, nothing is blocked, nothing is trapped..it is absorbed and emitted...*

Sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the surface.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 17, 2020)

The "radial" nature of "radiation" ... see how both words are related? ... it's a vector thing, and it's real ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> all plant life needs CO2 to survive, so why are we not seeing a huge increase in plant life if your "theories" are correct. and no matter how many charts you post, they are theories, not evidence.


CO2 is making Earth greener—for now – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

"A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal _Nature Climate Change_ on April 25."


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Same thing.
> 
> Marxists just don't get it.


*Capital is NOT economics; it's a factor of production, Trump.*

Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia

"The Catholic Church forbids usury.[45][46][47] 

"As established by papal encyclicals _Rerum Novarum_ and _Quadragesimo Anno_, Catholic social teaching does not support unrestricted capitalism, primarily because it is considered part of liberalism and secondly by its nature, which goes against social justice. 

"In 2013, Pope Francis said that more restrictions on the free market were required because the "dictatorship" of the global financial system and the 'cult of money' were making people miserable.[48] 

"In his encyclical _Laudato si'_, Pope Francis denounced the role of capitalism in furthering climate change.[49]

"Islam forbids lending money at interest, the mode of operation of capitalist finance,[50][51] although Islamic banks have developed alternative methods of making profits in transactions that are traditionally arranged using interest."


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgie thinks this is funny. so tell us, georgie, where has socialism ever worked in the history of the world.


Russia between 1917 and 1989.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *72 years later it was one of two global superpowers *
> 
> And yet, economically, still an also ran


Not enough corrupt billionaire oligarchs to feed Trump's money laundering machine, Kulak?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> Russia and China are successful today because they allowed capitalism to operate within their economic systems.


How is the Russian economy today successful? A majority of the population was better off economically during Soviet times.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

Redfish said:


> But I wonder why we don't see any americans moving to Russia or China. Can you explain that since you think they are such wonderful places to live?


I've never said they were wonderful places to live. Both countries function under a single party authoritarian state-capitalist government which is why I oppose Trump.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


No rebuttal other than a mewling denial if the facts...and some logical fallacy thrown in because you just can't help it...how completely unsurprising is that?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Yet another mewling denial of facts...no rebuttal at all and more name calling...

Still completely unsurprising..


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Greenhouse gasses don't trap heat. If they did, then first, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...the smoking gun that climate science predicted that would prove their hypothesis...it never showed up....there is no upper tropospheric hot spot...that would have been the top of your greenhouse...a greenhouse with no roof isn't a greenhouse at all.


*What would the surface temperature of the earth be without greenhouse gases?*

Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

"Some climate change skeptics dispute the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’, which keeps the *surface temperature of the Earth approximately 33 degrees C warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere*. 

"In other words, without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be largely uninhabitable.

"How do we know for sure this effect is real? 

"The principle is demonstrated through basic physics, because a bare rock orbiting the sun at the distance of the Earth should be far colder than the Earth actually is. 

"*The explanation for this observation was based on the work of John Tyndall, who discovered in 1859 that several gases, including carbon dioxide and water vapour, could trap heat. *

"This was the first evidence for what we know now as greenhouse gases. 

"Then, towards the end of the same century, a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius proved the relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures."


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



And yet you believe yourself to be qualified to reject peer reviewed, published science that calls what you believe into question.

And do point out any lies I have told...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Greenhouse gasses don't trap heat. If they did, then first, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...the smoking gun that climate science predicted that would prove their hypothesis...it never showed up....there is no upper tropospheric hot spot...that would have been the top of your greenhouse...a greenhouse with no roof isn't a greenhouse at all.
> ...


So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Greenhouse gasses don't trap heat. If they did, then first, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...the smoking gun that climate science predicted that would prove their hypothesis...it never showed up....there is no upper tropospheric hot spot...that would have been the top of your greenhouse...a greenhouse with no roof isn't a greenhouse at all.
> ...


Tyndall learned that certain gasses absorb and emit infrared radiation...he did not find that they trap anything...you hold a lot of false beliefs...but do feel free to provide quotes from tyndalls work stating that such gasses trap anything.

One interesting thing tyndall had to say about CO2 was that among the gasses that absorb radiation, CO2 was the...and I quote..."feeblest".

And by the way...no less giants than Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot found Arrhenius's work to be without merit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Its all they have... Empirical evidence and observed facts are not their friends.

I just spent 30 minuets reading the last 120 posts and not one of them admits the facts nor do they offer any evidence for their claims...

I commend your due diligence...  You have great patience...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> You may not realize this but that is how economics work. Government never produces innovation...that comes from the private sector and it comes when there is a profit motive.


Try thinking of government as a fourth factor of production. By producing roads, bridges, schools, and courts without extorting profit from tax payers, the costs of living and doing business are lowered. You should also factor in government protected patents whenever you attempt an intelligent discussion of innovation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


You dont have a clue how badly you are lying or how badly your blind faith in the government (holding NASA up as infallible) has allowed you to be duped as a fool.

Why dont you try to post up real facts and not the crap you have been feed with a slingshot...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

Public works are not innovation...and they are rife with corruption...a gross waste of tax dollars.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Refute his points.. WITH FACTS and not with your antiscience left wing drivel.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Like you said...empirical evidence is not the friend of these people...I doubt that they are even capable of determining what it is and how it differs from model output


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He can't.  If he could, he would have rather than offer up the mewling reply he made.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> they starved millions and stole billions in the process...when the loot ran out, they began to fail...and ended in abject failure...


*Where did American capitalism begin?
Chattel slavery and genocide.
MAGA?*

Slavery Made America

".by 1860, there were more millionaires (slaveholders all) living in the lower Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the United States. 

"In the same year, the nearly 4 million American slaves were worth some $3.5 billion, making them the largest single financial asset in the entire U.S. economy, worth more than all manufacturing and railroads combined."


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...



Place a sheet of 15µm IR photographic paper face up on the ground some moonless night ... process the paper and you see it is fogged ... only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause the paper to fog like that ... nothing else ... 

Empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ...


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 NASA already refuted his pile of bullshit.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



Care to explain how and why you care more about children's futures  than you care about the children and their rights, themselves?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Sorry, I chose NASA.  Not interested in your lies & phony analysis.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  I get it.  Any scientist that agrees with AGW are alll wrong.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 17, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


 I am not the one supporting stealing them at the border.  That would be you.

I'm not thew one supporting cutting food stamps & education., That would be you.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2020)

SSDD said:


> I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..


Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

"CLAIM: 'There isn’t any warming. All they’ve got is computer model predictions, folks. There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. There isn’t any empirical data for that.'

"Stephen Po-Chedley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
This claim is not accurate. Global temperature datasets, developed by a number of independent research groups, show robust warming in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface. The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1. 

"Considering multiple lines of evidence, the IPCC concluded that it is 'extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.' 

*"More recent analysis of satellite data shows that tropospheric warming from the satellite record is pronounced and cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone2."*


----------



## Chuz Life (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Do two wrongs make a right?

You know very well the children that you are in denial of, that I am asking about.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...
> ...


OOPs..

Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band....  Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Nope... Epic failure on your part as the only one spouting bull shit is you..  Again you deflect from evidence and observations that disprove your BS..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1.


Provide proof of this claim..

Your Wiki cut and paste has no link to any scientific paper..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > georgie thinks this is funny. so tell us, georgie, where has socialism ever worked in the history of the world.
> ...



Gulags are cool, eh comrade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *72 years later it was one of two global superpowers *
> ...



Not enough economic growth. Idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 17, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



O2 and N2 radiate in the 15µm range? Link?


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 18, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Water vapour radiates in this range (just a bit less, than CO_2).


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Do you believe NASA? No problem.

"Although carbon dioxide gets most of the bad publicity these days as the critical greenhouse gas, the warming effect of carbon dioxide is minuscule compared to that of water vapor. Water vapor is present in such abundance throughout the atmosphere that it acts like a blanket of insulation around our world, trapping heat and forcing surface temperatures higher than they would be otherwise. At most wavelengths within the thermal infrared energy spectrum (basically heat) that get trapped within Earth’s atmosphere you barely even notice the effects of carbon dioxide because water vapor totally dominates the signal."

Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 18, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Technically, modern USA are more socialistic than modern Russia or China.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 18, 2020)

Redfish said:


> human beings are polluting the earth's air and water.   There is no scientific proof that that pollution is causing the earth's climate to change.
> 
> my question is this:  everyone wants an unpolluted planet to live on,  why isn't fighting pollution enough for you lefties?   Why must you insist on a false link between pollution and climate?
> 
> ...



Environmentalism is an ideology heretical by its matter, anti-liberal and anti-humanistic by its goals, pseudoscientific by its methodology, cultists by its organisation.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 18, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


There are roghly 50 thousand Americans living in Moscow, 25 thousand in Sanct-Peterburg and a small number in other cities. There are roughly 100 thousands of american citisens living in China. But, yes, we don't know how many of them are ethnic Russians and Chines.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. There is an interesting article about empirical evidence of climate change in last two millenia.
> ...


Ok. If so, why do you think, that 
1) the current (not unprecedented) warming (if it really exists) is bad, not good?
2) it was caused by human activity, not by solar activity, Earth position, volcanic erruptions, etc?
3) it was caused by burning fossil fuel, not by agricultural activity, wide usage of fertilizers, the draining all that marshes, forestation and deforestation, etc?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..
> ...


Sorry.  Wrong.  You're talking about "homogenized" data, which means fake data.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 18, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


That's what he and his leftwing buddies have in mind for America.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> OOPs..
> 
> Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band....  Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...



Wrong ... widely available references all show just CO2 and H2O radiating at 15µm ... try again ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...
> ...







Sorry guy...In that wavelength we also have H20, CO2, and O3 emitting if you think that means something...not empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect...now toss in all wavelengths of cosmic radiation since that must mean as much as CO2 ...

And I already pointed out that if you bring your piece of paper into a dark room with plenty of CO2...heck pump some in if you like...and leave the paper on the counter till the cows come home, you won't get any fogging...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Provide proof of this claim..
> 
> Your Wiki cut and paste has no link to any scientific paper..


*What Wiki "cut and paste" are you referring to?*

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

 "The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1..." 

"1-Feldman et al (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature"


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



]Sorry guy...but it was NASA's opinion which has just been proven false with actual science...now if you can provide some peer reviewed, published science, based on empirical evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...by all means bring it on...otherwise, you are just showing yourself to be a denier of actual science and a purveyor of pseudoscience.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Yep...you chose nasa...I chose published peer reviewed literature and data from nasa to demonstrate that your opinion piece was wrong...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Gulags are cool, eh comrade?


Cool as Crow, Kulak.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..
> ...



Now you are just mewling and peeling.  Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..



georgephillip said:


> "Stephen Po-Chedley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
> This claim is not accurate. Global temperature datasets, developed by a number of independent research groups, show robust warming in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface. The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1.
> 
> "Considering multiple lines of evidence, the IPCC concluded that it is 'extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'



Great...lets see some of this evidence...what you have shown is a bit of actual science which doesn't demonstrate anything in particular with a great big assumption that it does tacked on for good measure.

*


georgephillip said:



			"More recent analysis of satellite data shows that tropospheric warming from the satellite record is pronounced and cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone2."
		
Click to expand...

*
Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate...that statement claims that we know them all...every natural factor, and how each and every one of those natural factors interact and affect all the others...we aren't even close to having that sort of knowledge of the way energy moves through the atmosphere...the statement is pure pseudoscience..and very very dishonest..  But if you think we know all the factors, and how they interact with each other, by all means, start listing..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Don't know where you got your graph but if you believe it tells you that H20 radiates in a smaller range than CO2, it is patently false...here is a graph showing the individual spectra of the major atmospheric gasses...as you can see, H2O completely dominates them all...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



My bet is that in both cases, the residents are professionals living far above the average standard of living, or on religious, medical, or humanitarian missions.  I doubt that you would find many americans living at the average standard of living...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > OOPs..
> ...



And O3...don't forget O3..


----------



## RealDave (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 You take data & apply your own incorrect analysis.

YOUR opinion pieces are bullshit.  You & your band of deniers are all wrong & if you assfucks get your way, future generations will suffer.

I ain't going to let uneducated, stupid people ruin by children's future.

My side is winning this argument.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Provide proof of this claim..
> ...



So go to that link and bring back some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...the paper provides some data which doesn't prove anything and then hangs a great big assumption on it and then pretends that it does...that is typical of climate pseudoscience...it is like most of what you have provided thus far...a bit of data that proves nothing and a great big assumption that proves even less.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



1.5 million living in Mexico.  Their dollars go further, healthcare is cheaper.  Many because they can no longer afford to live here.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> You take data & apply your own incorrect analysis.



So you say....but I don't see you demonstrating in any way at all that I am wrong...you provided your opinion pieces and I went to the published literature and found the data that proved your opinion pieces wrong.

You think a mewling, pewling, whining, sobbing claim that I am wrong equals some sort of actual rebuttal?  No wonder you have been so thoroughly fooled.  I can't believe that even someone like you would think that was any sort of response at all.  You may as well have dodged rather than offer up that whining reply..



RealDave said:


> I ain't going to let uneducated, stupid people ruin by children's future.



You are the uneducated stupid people who are going to ruin the children's future...



RealDave said:


> My side is winning this argument.



Sorry, but it isn't...your side can't even come up with a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...that isn't winning..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



And they don't live at the average standard of living....they go to mexico because under that depressed socioeconomic system, they can live like kings...and if they have serious health issues, they come back here for treatment....


----------



## RealDave (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


See,. here is a prime example of your dishonesty (stupidity).

We measure CO2 concentrations.  Are you claiming we can't?

WE compare them with CO2 concentrations of the past.  Are you claiming we can not?

WE note that they have rapidly increased.  Are you claiming they are not

We know made made emissions have been growing for decades.

  We know the Earth removes CO2 from the Atmosphere along with naturally emitting CO2.   The concentration is rising because more CO2 is being emitted than absorbed.  Are you claiming that this is false?

No other sources of CO2 emissions have been identified as causes for these increases outside of man made emissions.

We know  increased levels of CO2  => Increased greenhouse effect  =>  warmer temperatures.

Those are facts.  These have been proven to be true.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  But it proves your claim of only professions are living in other countries.   These are not professions, humanitarians or religious missionaries.  YOU were caught in as lie, just admit it & quit making excuses.

They do not live like kings, they just do better than they could here.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> See,. here is a prime example of your dishonesty (stupidity).
> 
> We measure CO2 concentrations.  Are you claiming we can't?



Feel free to point out anywhere that I said we could not measure CO2 concentrations...



RealDave said:


> WE compare them with CO2 concentrations of the past.  Are you claiming we can not?



Of course not...where did I ever say that?  I did point out that prior to the onset of the present ice age, CO2 concentrations were more than twice what they are today..and I pointed out that since the 1800's there have been over 90,000 CHEMICAL ANALYSES of the CO2 concentration in the air which found CO2 over the past century to have been as high as 500ppm....



RealDave said:


> WE note that they have rapidly increased.  Are you claiming they are not



Of course not...where are you getting this stuff.  Do you ever actually read anything?  Are you able to read all the words?  I pointed out that small changes in temperature can have dramatic effects on the earth's own CO2 making machinery resulting in large increases of natural CO2 output or sharp decreases...We know from ice core data that large changes can happen in atmospheric CO2 in a very short period of time...and this is all before fossil fuels were being used..



RealDave said:


> We know made made emissions have been growing for decades.



Yes...but the are such a small part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, and the earth's on CO2 producing machinery that they aren't even enough to off set the natural variation from year to year.  I provided peer reviewed published sceince already which demonstrated that empirically..



RealDave said:


> We know the Earth removes CO2 from the Atmosphere along with naturally emitting CO2.   The concentration is rising because more CO2 is being emitted than absorbed.  Are you claiming that this is false?



Not at all...we know that CO2 follows temperature changes...as the earth gets warmer, the earth's own CO2 making machinery kicks into a higher gear..warmer oceans outgas more CO2...insect life increases...as I pointed out, termites alone produce more CO2 than all of humanity....decomposition happens faster and more efficiently in warmer climates...all of these things cause the earth to produce more CO2...and that results in more CO2 in the atmosphere...that is how atmospheric CO2 got to be around 1000ppm at the time the present ice age began...as the earth cooled, the natural CO2 making machinery geared down and as a result, there was less CO2 in the atmosphere...there is always going to be lower concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere during cool periods..



RealDave said:


> No other sources of CO2 emissions have been identified as causes for these increases outside of man made emissions.



That is flatly untrue...we make gross estimates regarding natural sources of CO2 with very large margins of error because we really don't have a handle on how much CO2 the earth emits.  Heck, we really don't have a handle on how much we produce..the margin of error for our own CO2 production is as large as the margin of error for natural CO2 production.

We make estimates regarding the amount of CO2 produced by animal respiration, but do you really think we know how much CO2 is produced by animals, microscopic organisms, and humans simply breathing?  Do you really think that?

We make estimates of how much CO2 is produced by decomposition of organic matter...but again, the margin of error for that estimate is very large..we really have no idea how much CO2 is being produced by decomposition on the surface of the earth, much less below the surface and in the oceans...the amounts are nothing more than wild guesses which is why the margins of error are so large...

We make estimates of how much CO2 is released due to the weathering of carbonate rocks...but we really don't have any real idea...we make estimates with very large margins of error..and how much is produced in the oceans due to the break down of carbonate rocks and corals?  A wild guess is as good as we can manage. 

We can make a fair estimate on how much is produced by burning of fossil fuels based on variations in the stored supply, but even that has a fairly large margin of error because the estimate simply assumes the burning of fossil fuels..it really isn't able to account for all the ways in which it is burned and the varying amount of CO2 released by each sort of burning...Super high efficiency burning with filters which scrub CO2 from the exhaust is counted right along with a 1924 diesel tractor which is pumping out black smoke enough to choke a horse...

And how much is released by forest fires, and grass fires?  Again, nothing more than a wild guess...with a very large margin of error.

Volcanic activity is the new kicker.  In the past it was said that human CO2 dwarfs volcanic CO2...of course they were only counting 6 or 8 known active volcanoes on the surface, and it is true that we produce more CO2 than those.  Underwater volcanic activity was not taken into account...and now even climate science admits that they have GROSSLY underestimated the amount of CO2 that is coming from the ocean floor.  Hundreds of thousands of volcanic vents are spewing CO2 constantly from the ocean floor and we don't have the foggiest idea of how much the true amount actually is.

So in short, we have a long way to go before we can even begin to have any sort of real handle on how much CO2 the earth produces and how much it varies from year to year..



RealDave said:


> We know  increased levels of CO2  => Increased greenhouse effect  =>  warmer temperatures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



most of the americans living in mexico are retired professionals...people who saved their money and want to live a higher standard of living now that they are no longer on the job... most of them live in resort towns along the mexican west coast...they look like sandals resorts and the lawns are cut, and houses are cleaned, and streets swept by regular mexicans who live an entirely different lifestyle than the resort town residents.  Are you ever honest with yourself about anything?


----------



## Redfish (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for Georgie or one of the other members of the AGW religion to answer this simple question.   Lets hear from you,  OR, you can admit that your religion of man made climate change is a fraud
> ...




evaporation, wind currents, temperature, cloud formation.

Now, tell us exactly what you want the people of planet earth to do in order to save us all from climate change---------be specific,  tell us exactly what you want us all to do.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...In that wavelength we also have H20, CO2, and O3 emitting if you think that means something...not empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect...now toss in all wavelengths of cosmic radiation since that must mean as much as CO2 ...
> 
> And I already pointed out that if you bring your piece of paper into a dark room with plenty of CO2...heck pump some in if you like...and leave the paper on the counter till the cows come home, you won't get any fogging...



Those are transmittance charts you posted ... and it was already pointed out the water vapor is also a greenhouse gas ... ozone is reactive at just a bit lower wavelength than 15µm ... you asked for empirical evidence, and you've received it ... if you don't believe it, then explain why the paper fogs ... and yes, of course the paper will fog in a darkroom if you unpack it from the dry ice ... have you ever worked with IR film in a darkroom before? ... have you ever worked in a darkroom? ... 

You've allowed for 0 transmittance through the atmosphere at 15µm ... why would cosmic sources gets through? ... 

You can verify all this with just about any astrophysics textbook ... so this information won't generally be found in the scientific literature ... when astrophysicists write papers for each other, they don't review the most basic principles in their field ... for example, a research paper on genetics won't include information about the difference between an amine group and an acid group ... it's always fair to assume the geneticists reading the paper already knows this ...

So in climatology papers, you won't find much discussion on basic principles ... you need to get a decent climatology textbook and read it yourself, then read these scientific papers ... otherwise you'll just get yourself confused ... well, more confused ...


----------



## Redfish (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for Georgie or one of the other members of the AGW religion to answer this simple question. Lets hear from you, OR, you can admit that your religion of man made climate change is a fraud
> ...




Ok but what specifically do you want us to do in order to "slow global climate change"?

should we all buy 20,000 sq ft mansions like Al Gore?  fly on private planes like the hollyloonies as they travel to climate summits?   send money to Gore to buy carbon credits?

its a scam dude, and you have been scammed.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> you asked for empirical evidence, and you've received it ... if you don't believe it, then explain why the paper fogs ... and yes, of course the paper will fog in a darkroom if you unpack it from the dry ice ... have you ever worked with IR film in a darkroom before? ... have you ever worked in a darkroom? ...



Yes..I have worked with IR film in a darkroom...and no, it doesn't fog...and the fogging of the paper is not evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect....it is evidence that you are easily fooled though....congratulations.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

Redfish said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > We're all waiting for you to answer my simple question ... what causes precipitation? ... you claimed this is changing, but it appears you don't know why it forms in the first place ... you also claimed you have knowledge and I have shit ... c'mon now ... answer up ... let's see how deep your knowledge goes ...
> ...



Wrong, terribly wrong ... the answer is *uplift* ... an air parcel rising in the air column ... this causes pressure to fall and the associated adiabatic cooling ... which in turn causes the saturation level of water vapor to fall ... which in turn causes the water vapor to change state into liquid water ... it is this change of state that defines precipitation ... 

I suggest you never criticize others' knowledge ... not until you've gained some yourself ... you just threw out guesses which include the opposite, how the hell does evaporation cause precipitation, those are physically opposite processes ... 

The most important thing to do about mitigating global warming doesn't apply to folks connected to the internet, so moving on:
2] Ditch the passenger vehicles, remove 90% of them off the streets ...
3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...
4] And for God's sake, _stop eating so much meat_ ...

If electric power is available to you from a grid structure, then your area most likely already has your fertility rates under control ... it's in those areas without electric service that breeding is still rampant ... thus, if you're connected to the internet, you personally don't have to worry about overpopulation ... except rural China, their fertility rates are the equal of Western Europe and Anglo-America ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



Precipitation can also be caused when evaporation causes the amount of water in the air to increase...so you gave him half an answer...it has nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect although it does touch on the actual reason the temperarature is what it is....at atmospheric thermal effect driven by incoming solar insolation and pressure.

and the most important thing to do about global warming is hope that it happens sooner rather than later and toss the charlatans pushing man made climate change out of science and into traveling carnivals where they belong.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Yes..I have worked with IR film in a darkroom...and no, it doesn't fog...



I don't believe you ... not without the details ... what kind of IR film were you using? ... there are several wavelengths that can be used without fogging ... by the charts you posted, looks like 10 or 11µm is transparent ... I'm talking about 15µm specifically ... 

Sure ... I was working at Mt Laguna Observatory doing some basic research on eclipsing binary stars with the photometer up there ... the big freezer had just about every kind of film Kodak manufactured at the time, including all manner of IR film ... it was one of these sheets I exposed accidentally while loading a plate holder for the Schmidt camera ... when it was developed, it was indeed completely fogged ... as punishment, I had to write a report on IR back radiation and proper procedures for handling IR film ... pack the dry ice _first_, then the film ... duh ...



SSDD said:


> and the fogging of the paper is not evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect....it is evidence that you are easily fooled though....congratulations.



Then what causes the film to fog? ... it's not enough to say "such and such doesn't" ... you still have to say what does ... something other than magic pixie dust ... and make sure your explanation allows for the IR imagery we're getting from these new GOES satellites ... full disk images ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yes..I have worked with IR film in a darkroom...and no, it doesn't fog...
> ...



Whether you believe me or not is irrelavent to the fact...you clearly believe several things that are not true therefore it stands to reason that you would probably not believe things that are. 



RealDave said:


> as punishment, I had to write a report on IR back radiation and proper procedures for handling IR film ... pack the dry ice _first_, then the film ... duh ...



Like the newby in the air force working on the flight line is punished for minor offenses by being sent to collect 50 yards of flight line or a half a gallon of prop wash...congratulations.



RealDave said:


> Then what causes the film to fog? ... it's not enough to say "such and such doesn't" ... you still have to say what does ... something other than magic pixie dust ... and make sure your explanation allows for the IR imagery we're getting from these new GOES satellites ... full disk images ...



Who knows?  Not back radiation, that's for sure.  Here...let me give you a link to a couple of experiments performed by a guy who grasps the topic who actually tried to demonstrate back radiation...it didn't happen...and when the inevitable complaints by believers rolled in, he modified the experiment to accommodate their complaints and still no back radiation...it simply doesn't happen no matter how much you wish it were so..

And after you look at them, if you have complaints, make them known...I am sure that he can show you that if he modifies the experiment for them, it will still not result in back radiation which simply can not and does not happen.

If it were possible to demonstrate back radiation, then climate science would have provided all manner of indisputable experiments to end the argument...they haven't because the phenomenon only exists in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and the simulations derived from them which by the way are abject failures...

Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl

Greenplate Effect – It Does Not Happen Proof No 2 | PSI Intl

And you might speak to BillyBob about the results of experiments that he has been involved in demonstrating that IR does not warm the air...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Precipitation can also be caused when evaporation causes the amount of water in the air to increase...so you gave him half an answer...it has nothing to do with a radiative greenhouse effect although it does touch on the actual reason the temperarature is what it is....at atmospheric thermal effect driven by incoming solar insolation and pressure.



Such foolishness ... evaporation is when liquid water changes state into a gas ... precipitation is when gaseous water changes state into liquid ... what you're saying is the same as "melting causes freezing" ... such foolishness ... I explained the physics involved, sorry it was over your head, maybe you should start with a basic physics textbook before you try to read an astrophysics textbook ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl
> 
> Greenplate Effect – It Does Not Happen Proof No 2 | PSI Intl



Principia Scientific is a Christian Science organization ... yeah, fucking creationists ... no, there's no back radiation is a vacuum ... how can you be so stupid? ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl
> ...



Logical fallacy...you are quick to point out the logical fallacies of others yet you turn to the very tactic when your faith is challenged....there is no back radiation anywhere....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*My side is winning this argument.*

Which is why Clinton was able to pass Kyoto in the 90s.

What was the vote in the Senate again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl
> ...



Practice. He's had lots and lots of practice.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> The most important thing to do about mitigating global warming doesn't apply to folks connected to the internet, so moving on:
> 2] Ditch the passenger vehicles, remove 90% of them off the streets ...


No civilian cars, means no tanks. No tanks - no military victories.




> 3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...


No civilian planes - no military jets. No military jets - no military victories.



> 4] And for God's sake, _stop eating so much meat_ ...


Less meat in the diet - less strong soldiers. Less strong soldiers - less military victories.

Right answer is much more simple - Lets strike "global warming" with "nuclear winter" (the same kind of pseudoscientific charlatanism).
More clean energy means more nukes. More nukes - less competitors. Less competitors means more resourses.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > 2] Ditch the passenger vehicles, remove 90% of them off the streets ...
> ...



"Passenger vehicles" means vehicles designed to carry passengers ... like a Ford Focus or Ferrari 350GT ... not semi-trucks or buses ... the emissions from military vehicles is insignificant, there's not 100's of millions of tanks running back and forth from the grocery store every day ... sheesh ... 



Silver Cat said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > 3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...
> ...



Same logic as above ... here's a map of all the current commercial jets in the air right now ... FlightAware ... jet engines emit soot as well ...



Silver Cat said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > 4] And for God's sake, _stop eating so much meat_ ...
> ...



Do you think eating meat every other meal has that profound of an effect? ... just cutting meat in half opens up an enormous number of acres for growing human food ... drive around Indiana, all those corn fields are for beef and pork production ... what a waste ...



Silver Cat said:


> Right answer is much more simple - Lets strike "global warming" with "nuclear winter" (same kind of pseudoscientific charlatanism).
> More clean energy means more nukes. More nukes - less competitors. Less competitors means more resourses.



Very strange ... both "global warming" and "nuclear winter" are falsifiable ... these issues can be properly addressed with scientific methods ... you should learn what "pseudo-science" means before you use that term again ... parts of AGW theory have been falsified, thus it's honest to God science ...

The battle fought on United States soil was in 1865 ... just saying ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Greenplate Effect – It doesn't happen! | PSI Intl
> ...



No back radiation in a vacuum.   I have had some off the wall things said to me on this board, but that makes the top 10.  Do tell...why is back radiation possible in the presence of air, but not in a vacuum. 

Didn't you once claim that radiation from the earth reaches, and is absorbed by the sun.  Is there a route for the radiation from the earth to reach the sun without traveling across a vacuum?

Go ahead...lets hear it...why is back radiation not possible in a vacuum?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Go ahead...lets hear it...why is back radiation not possible in a vacuum?



HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Lord have mercy ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

Redfish said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...





Redfish said:


> Ok but what specifically do you want us to do in order to "slow global climate change"?


*Decide on a common starting point:*

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. 

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. 

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Go ahead...lets hear it...why is back radiation not possible in a vacuum?
> ...



Earth photons can't hit the Sun. Get it?

I've never heard anything so stupid, but that's SSDD's thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." *

75/77 is very impressive!!

Let's spend $70 trillion based on that.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not enough economic growth. Idiot


Insufficient speculation, Sap?




Nintil - The Soviet Union: GDP growth


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Not enough economic growth. Idiot
> ...



I guess if commies speculated more, they wouldn't be such poor, alcoholic twats, eh loser?
Thanks for the chart. It's always nice to see the data showing the failure of Communism.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Technically, modern USA are more socialistic than modern Russia or China.


*State capitalism also drives the political economies of those countries:*

State capitalism - Wikipedia

"State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. 

"Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to economies such as that of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed 'too big to fail' receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and *where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profit*s.[13][14][15] 

"This practice is in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and _laissez-faire_ capitalism."


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> Sorry. Wrong. You're talking about "homogenized" data, which means fake data.


*Agree or not?*

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. 

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. 

*"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."*


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry. Wrong. You're talking about "homogenized" data, which means fake data.
> ...


Consensus isn't science.  It's politics.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Not enough economic growth. Idiot
> ...



Wow ... Soviet GDP grew that much after is dissolved? ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> *Agree or not?*
> 
> Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
> 
> ...



Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 18, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...




 

I assumed the atmospheric window as no photographic paper is capable of such a narrow limitation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 18, 2020)

RealDave said:


> YOUR opinion pieces are bullshit. You & your band of deniers are all wrong & if you assfucks get your way, future generations will suffer.




And your ignorant of basic physics... You would have us all suffer for no fucking reason other than you and your ilk want control over the populace.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Technically, modern USA are more socialistic than modern Russia or China.
> ...



_ large enterprises that are deemed 'too big to fail' receive publicly funded government bailouts_

Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.

_that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws_

Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.

_*where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profit*s._

Banks were fined tens of billions. Private owners lost trillions.

Good old Noam, always good for a laugh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



So you lied?  Or you don't know what 15µm range means?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 18, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Right to being a hack....
Good ol Toad going right to stupid....  *15µm is not a range it is a narrowly defined frequency.*  Its your assumption of a range that is dead wrong. I am well versed in spectral analysis of energy.  It helps to know the subject matter before you embarrass yourself as being ignorant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*I am well versed in spectral analysis of energy*

So you were lying when you said, 

_"Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band...."
_
Good to know.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> I assumed the atmospheric window as no photographic paper is capable of such a narrow limitation.



Check with Kodak ... they may not make it anymore but they did back in the 1960's and 1970's ... CCD technology is in more general use today, but *SSDD* says that's bogus pseudo-science and a massive conspiracy to do ... er ... something ... not completely sure ... you'll have to have him tell you why 21st Century electronics are fraudulent ...

Your chart clearly shows CO2 being reactive at 14.9µm ... so thanks for the verification of my claims ... empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ... 

Also ... we can measure the Earth's radiation curve and from there calculate the temperature of 4ºC (277 K) ... the actual temperature is closer to 12ºC or 15ºC ... what do you call this effect if not the greenhouse effect? ... I'd agree with you if you said the internet is full of bullshit explanations of this ... but we still have this ≈10ºC higher temperatures on the surface ... the only thing between the Earth's surface and outer space is the atmosphere ... it's an easy step to say the atmosphere is causing this increase in temperatures ... but I'm open to any other explanation that doesn't violate the basic laws of nature ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 18, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> *... 15µm is not a range it is a narrowly defined frequency ...*



15µm describes a wavelength ... not a frequency ... they're inversely proportional, but not equal ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





SSDD said:


> Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..


*How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?*





"Rush Limbaugh’s comments would have been fair in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius calculated that we could cause serious global warming1. 

"But the past century of measurements mean that around 97% of specialists now agree that humans are the main cause of global warming2,3, and Limbaugh’s claim is false.

*"World temperatures measurements began in the 1800s and show a warming burst since the 1970s. *

"Last year we checked with satellite scans of the ocean4, confirming the accuracy of the surface measurements."

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate.


Who told you that, Dude?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 18, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



*How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?*

The temperature is never supposed to change? Why?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> So go to that link and bring back some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability


Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

"Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. 

"The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4"


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

SSDD said:


> as I pointed out, termites alone produce more CO2 than all of humanity


*Link?*

"A meme shared hundreds of times in multiple posts on Facebook and Twitter claims that termites produce 10 times more carbon dioxide than humans in a single year. 

"The claim is false; scientists estimate termites’ carbon emissions are approximately one-tenth of those created by humans."

It’s the other way around -- termites produce approximately one-tenth of the carbon dioxide emissions created by humans


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> 2] Ditch the passenger vehicles, remove 90% of them off the streets ...
> 3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...
> 4] And for God's sake, _stop eating so much meat_ ...


Seriously?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Go ahead...lets hear it...why is back radiation not possible in a vacuum?
> ...


Still waiting...maybe you meant to say that there could be no back conduction or back convection in a vacuum...you believe in those also don’t you?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Agree or not?*
> ...





ReinyDays said:


> Why do you say 66.4% expressed no opinion ... and then say 97.1% endorse ... are you including "no opinion" as affirmatives? ..


Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

If I'm interpreting this source correctly of 11,944 peer reviewed climate abstracts published between 1991-2011, 66.4% expressed no opinion on AGW.

32.6% endorsed AGW and 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

Of the 33.6% of abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

If those numbers reflect 2020 reality, it makes this claim by NASA appear misleading, at least? 

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

*"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 19, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...





bripat9643 said:


> Consensus isn't science. It's politics.


*Whenever crony-capitalists control government.*




Crony Capitalism meets Sustainability | Toronto Sustainability | TSSS

*"Market Capitalism in Action*

"The first question a good capitalist always asks is, 'What is the business opportunity?' 

"The next step is to flush out some of the key issues. 

"Let’s assume the two people involved in the discussion are named Donald and Mickey.

*"Donald:* Mickey, do you know anything about this ocean plastic issue?

*"Mickey:* I think fish are dying and waterways are clogged with plastic which degrades into tiny pieces and poisons fish. 

"I’ve also heard that when the plastic degrades it releases CO2 which contributes to climate change AND the tiny pieces of plastic can also enter into human water supplies. 

"Besides that, I think our customers are growing concerned that we might be contributing to this problem. 

"I’ve heard that some of them are looking at our competitors who are exploring how to address this issue."


----------



## Redfish (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


50 years ago those temperature measuring stations were in forests, today they are on blacktopped parking lots.   Think about that for a few seconds.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




you have never answered my simple question from a few days ago so lets try again.

What specifically do you want the people of planet earth to do to stop AGW?   Give us a list of things that the 7 billion people of earth must do to save the planet from boiling.   

Or, if you cannot do that, tell us why fighting pollution isn't enough for you.   Why do you need a fake link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> "Passenger vehicles" means vehicles designed to carry passengers ... like a Ford Focus or Ferrari 350GT ... not semi-trucks or buses ... the emissions from military vehicles is insignificant, there's not 100's of millions of tanks running back and forth from the grocery store every day ... sheesh ...


There is such term as "industrial ecosystem". Something like the "natural ecosystem". You can not raise and breed predators, without any herbivores and plants. In normal economic, you make machines to make machines to make civilians cars, which are paid by millions of civilians. If you have the industry, which is paid by civilians, you can gather taxes, and return those taxes to buy tanks. If you have industry, that made only tanks, not civilian cars, you need demand much more taxes from civilians. It is why, even shizo-militaristic socialists in DPRK make civil cars to have ability to build tanks.





Do you want here even more shizomilitaristic regime, than in DPRK, or do you want to buy tanks in China and Russia?



Silver Cat said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > 3] Cut way back on airline travel, ground 90% of the fleet ...
> ...



Same logic as above ... [/quote]
Yes, same logic as above.



Silver Cat said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > 4] And for God's sake, _stop eating so much meat_ ...
> ...





> Do you think eating meat every other meal has that profound of an effect? ... just cutting meat in half opens up an enormous number of acres for growing human food ... drive around Indiana, all those corn fields are for beef and pork production ... what a waste ...


Some Americans eats enough of meat, but many - not enough, yet.



> Very strange ... both "global warming" and "nuclear winter" are falsifiable ... these issues can be properly addressed with scientific methods ... you should learn what "pseudo-science" means before you use that term again ... parts of AGW theory have been falsified, thus it's honest to God science ...


"Unfalsifiable" is not the only sigh of the pseudoscience. If you willingly "forget" to add important data in your models (for example - CO_2 emission in NW-model and H_2O emission in AGW-models) it is pseudoscience, too.



> The battle fought on United States soil was in 1865 ... just saying ...


The Russians are dreaming about invading USA, and, with all that new technologies, they could have chance (or we can give them this chance).
Did you ever hear their songs? For example, "The medal for the capture of Washington"
Or "On the nuclear submarine"
Or "The missiles are flying away slowly..."
Or many-many others?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > *... 15µm is not a range it is a narrowly defined frequency ...*
> ...


interchangeable words...  what is frequency? The length of a wave and its cycles per second.  For all intents and purposes they are the same, in laymans terms. Now if you want to talk the power and amplitude of that wave they're inversely proportional, but not equal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 19, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I want to talk about your claim that "Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this" 15µm "band".


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


I love it when left wing twits use climtefeedback.org as a source... Nothing they post has empirical evidence or science to back them up. That aside, lets look a bit longer in the paleo record and you tell me why we warmed far faster and far greater than today's little blip.



 

I see some very fast warm ups in there and some very fast cool downs..  Where is your empirical evidence man is causing the current warm up?  This is considered to be the natural variation bounds for our interglacial and we are nowhere near exiting those limits today.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> There is such term as "industrial ecosystem" ...



Yes ... anything we do to help the environment will be expensive ... and will cause a recession ... remember how bad things were when we increased the building insulation requirements? ...



Silver Cat said:


> "Unfalsifiable" is not the only sigh of the pseudoscience. If you willingly "forget" to add important data in your models (for example - CO_2 emission in NW-model and H_2O emission in AGW-models) it is pseudoscience, too.



You speaking of fraud, or fraudulent science ... that's different from pseudoscience ... pseudoscience can be used for fraud, but it's not in of itself necessarily fraudulent ... crypto-zoology is a good example of a good reason to use pseudoscience ... where we treat the search for legendary creatures using scientific means and methods ... not that we say it's science, just we're using scientific method for something that's not science ... and the King Cheetah was found and described in this way ... now, it's proper science ...

I recently came across the pseudo- prefix in another strange way ... describing torque as a pseudo-vector ... and they were right, torque isn't a vector ... we just treat it as a vector because, well, it's useful to do so ... in truth, it's a second order tensor, but taking the cross product yields an effective pseudo-vector that gives us good results ... we just have to remember it's not a real vector, we just treating as a vector is all ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 19, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> interchangeable words...  what is frequency? The length of a wave and its cycles per second.  For all intents and purposes they are the same, in laymans terms. Now if you want to talk the power and amplitude of that wave they're inversely proportional, but not equal.



Those words are not interchangeable the way you use them ... 15µm is a wavelength, not a frequency ... even in layman's terms ... 2 x 10^13 hertz is the frequency of 15µm IR ... big difference ... frequency is strictly cycles-per-second ... 

You mis-spoke ... it happens ... easy enough to just admit it and move on with your point ... and you've been asked several times now to clarify something else you posted ... if this was another mistake, best to admit it ... lesson learned and we can move on ... 

*I am well versed in spectral analysis of energy. It helps to know the subject matter before you embarrass yourself as being ignorant.*

You maybe shouldn't have posted this ... it's going to keep coming back to haunt you ... maybe it's true, but these "embarrassing" mistakes of yours are going to get called now ... I took a class is all, that doesn't allow me to call others ignorant ... so I generally don't ... a habit maybe you should cultivate ...


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > There is such term as "industrial ecosystem" ...
> ...


Depends on your definition of the term "to help the environment". For example, increasing of CO_2 help green plants to grow, same is usage of fertilizers. 





Silver Cat said:


> "Unfalsifiable" is not the only sigh of the pseudoscience. If you willingly "forget" to add important data in your models (for example - CO_2 emission in NW-model and H_2O emission in AGW-models) it is pseudoscience, too.



You speaking of fraud, or fraudulent science ... that's different from pseudoscience ... pseudoscience can be used for fraud, but it's not in of itself necessarily fraudulent ... crypto-zoology is a good example of a good reason to use pseudoscience ... where we treat the search for legendary creatures using scientific means and methods ... not that we say it's science, just we're using scientific method for something that's not science ... and the King Cheetah was found and described in this way ... now, it's proper science ...
[/QUOTE]
Depends on your definitions of the terms.
Wikipedia suggests us those ones:
---------------
*Pseudoscience*
Pseudoscnce consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[
----------------
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are _principles_ of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
-------------------

So, "careless" observation and ignorance of important factors are incompatible with scientific method, that means that both NW and AGW "theories" are pseudoscientific.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Depends on your definitions of the terms



Sure ... this is called "semantics" ... you use whichever definition suits your opinion ... 

*"careless" observation and ignorance of important factors are incompatible with scientific method*

Newton, Faraday, Einstein are all pseudoscientists ... very bold of you to say ... Planck, Hubble, Darwin ... the list goes on of preeminent folks who were ignorant of important factors ... all pseudoscientists you say ... maybe the problem is with your definitions ...


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Depends on your definitions of the terms
> ...


No-no-no. If you don't know something - it is normal. But if you willingly "ignore" important facts, already known to you,  to get a pre-determined result, it is cheating.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> No-no-no. If you don't know something - it is normal. But if you willingly "ignore" important facts, already known to you,  to get a pre-determined result, it is cheating.



Sir Issac Newton ... everybody knew his Law of Gravity didn't work for the planet Mercury ... it was obvious and plain ... the matter was simply ignored, we wanted our predetermined results ... to you, this is well over 200 years of pseudoscience ... pseudoscience still in common use today ... GR is never used in climatology or meteorology, biology or sociology ... we _ignore_ the proven fact that Newton was wrong, and everything based on Newtonian physics is pseudoscientific deception ...

ok boomer ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 19, 2020)

Redfish said:


> What specifically do you want the people of planet earth to do to stop AGW? Give us a list of things that the 7 billion people of earth must do to save the planet from boiling.


I think the richest 350 million people, especially those living in urban or suburban neighborhoods could start here:





*"2. Power your home with renewable energy.*
Choose a utility company that generates at least half its power from wind or solar and has been certified by Green-e Energy, an organization that vets renewable energy options. 

"If that isn’t possible for you, take a look at your electric bill; many utilities now list other ways to support renewable sources on their monthly statements and websites.

*3. Weatherize, weatherize, weatherize.*
"'Building heating and cooling are among the biggest uses of energy,' Haq says. Indeed, heating and air-conditioning account for almost half of home energy use. 

"You can make your space more energy efficient by sealing drafts and ensuring it’s adequately insulated. You can also claim federal tax credits for many energy-efficiency home improvements."
How You Can Stop Global Warming

*Of course, the biggest offender isn't even in the discussion for most Americans.




The Pentagon's Climate Impact Is a Threat to Our Planet*


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 19, 2020)

Military fuel emissions over 19 years is 400 megatons ... global emissions is (conservatively) 10 gigatons/yr ... so the military is responsible for about 0.2% of total worldwide emissions ... that doesn't included depleted uranium left on the battlefields ...

Interesting point ... two decades of military actions is more polluting than a two year's worth of cars on the road ... cute graphic, nothing like cartoon cars to post deceptive data ... works almost all the time ...


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > No-no-no. If you don't know something - it is normal. But if you willingly "ignore" important facts, already known to you,  to get a pre-determined result, it is cheating.
> ...


Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > What specifically do you want the people of planet earth to do to stop AGW? Give us a list of things that the 7 billion people of earth must do to save the planet from boiling.
> ...


No thanks. I'm not going to spend three times more on energy than I spend now.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 19, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.
> 
> _that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws_
> 
> Joking? Banks lost hundreds of billions during the crash.


*Banks caused the Great Recession.
How many bankers went to prison?*

Great Recession in the United States - Wikipedia

"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. 

"It concluded that 'the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.'"[3]

"According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 19, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.



More semantics ... tiresome ...

First you're talking about AGW theory ... now all of a sudden it's AGW models ... and now we're not talking about the science, but rather the (uneducated) "supporters" of AGW ... if you want to condemn the *stupidity* of what some people think AGW theory says, I'm on your side ... but there is an actual scientific theory that tries to explain man-kind's roll in climate, and it covers much much more than CO2 emissions ... 

No one thinks AGW theory is perfect as currently stated ... as new research gets published, old ideas are changed, new ideas are added ... the matter is evolving as we type to each other ... I know, _The National Enquirer_ doesn't publish this, try finding different sources for your climate research news ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.
> ...


The Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and it's the only cause of the great depression.  Financial firms acting recklessly, breakdowns in corporate governance, excessive borrowing and risk by households are all as old as money.  Why should all these errors occur at the same time?  The answer is the Federal Reserve.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Like TARP? The US Treasury made well over $100 billion, and counting, on TARP.
> ...



*Banks caused the Great Recession.*

How?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 19, 2020)

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*The Federal Reserve is an arm of the government, and it's the only cause of the great depression.*

Why do you think that?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> *How would you (or Rush) explain this global temperature spike over the past fifty years?*



In the same way I would explain all of the rapid spikes in temperature over the past 10,000 years....natural variability...and as you can see, over the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when the temperatures increased far more, and far faster than the bit of change we have seen.  The fact is that the bit of change we have seen over the past 150 years or so is insignificant compared to some of the rapid changes over the past 10,000 years.  Hyperventilating, and waving your hands simply doesn't make the change we have seen more significant..and certainly not unusual or unprecedented.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate.
> ...



Great...step on up and tell me all of the factors that drive the climate and how each and every one of them interact with each of the others...I am particularly interested in how the wild changes, on annual, and decadal scales, in the amount of solar output in the various individual energy frequencies as opposed to the total solar output drive the climate...and I would be interested to know how much geothermal energy is being released by vents on the ocean floors and what effect that has on the climate...

Lets hear it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So go to that link and bring back some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability
> ...



Fine example of scientists being fooled by their own instrumentation.  Those measurements were made with instruments that were cooled to a temperature of at least -80F.  They were measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument.  Put an identical instrument next to the cooled one except leave it at ambient temperature and you measure no such energy because energy only moves from a warmer source to a cooler source...never from cooler to warmer..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > as I pointed out, termites alone produce more CO2 than all of humanity
> ...



Sure...I started with this masters thesis titled METABOLIC GAS EMISSIONS FROM RETICULITERMES FLAVIPES (KOLLAR) (ISOPTERA: RHINOTERMITIDAE)  It was written by a fellow attending oklahoma state university.  Thesis papers are a great starting point for research because they contain so many references to published literature.

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handl...kstate_0664M_14733.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Following his references led me to a large number of sources...here a paper published by the AAAS (an organization that those who believe in AGW tend to respect highly because their organizational statement is all about man made global warming) titled Termites:  A potentially large source of atmospheric methane, carbon dioxide and molecular hydrogen. 

Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogen

Here from the abstract:

*Abstract*
_Termites may emit large quantities of methane, carbon dioxide, and molecular hydrogen into the atmosphere. Global annual emissions calculated from laboratory measurements could reach 1.5_ x _10^14 grams of methane and 5_ x _10^16 grams of carbon dioxide. As much as 2_ x _1014 grams of molecular hydrogen may also be produced. Field measurements of methane emissions from two termite nests in Guatemala corroborated the laboratory results. The largest emissions should occur in tropical areas disturbed by human activities_.

5 x 10^16 grams of CO2 is 50,000,000,000,000,000 grams or 50 gigatons and lets not get into how much of the methane breaks down and converts to CO2 and O3 in the atmosphere.

According to the World Resources Institute, their doom and gloom accounting of the amount of CO2 we produce per year is 37 gigagons in 2018...  By my counting, 50 gigatons is larger than 37 gigatons.  Unlike you believers, I try to go to the actual science whenever I can rather than just looking till I find something that agrees with what I believe.

Not sure where the 10 times business comes in...I never made any such claim...I only said that termites produce more CO2 than we do.  Think about it...it is estimated that there are 1000 pounds of termites for every human being on earth...and that whole thousand pounds is producing CO2 every second minute and hour of every day...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



If you research the history of science, you will find that nearly 100% of the time, the consensus regarding relatively new branches of sceince such as climate sceince has been wrong...and that is branches of science which haven't been hijacked by politics and people with an agenda...and very often, old consensus opinions are wrong as well..they have been falling like dominoes over the past decade....consensus is no basis to choose which side to believe....if you are looking at consensus as a deciding point, the odds would be heavily in your favor to simply choose the opposite of the consensus if you want to be on the right side....especially in a relatively new branch of science such as climatology.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 19, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Any theory has its own limitations. If we say "Newton's model is good to describe movement of all planets, exept Mercury" - it is normal. If AGW-supporters say that their "CO_2 only" models works only for Mars, it could be acceptable.
> ...


Ok. You say, that there is the "stupid" AGW-theory, and "smart" AGW-theory, so there are some questions:
1. Pls, show us a "smart" AWG-model, which include data about water vapour, clouds, farming, forestation/deforestation, fertilizers, fishing, whaling, Milancovich periods, volcanic eruptions and so on.
2. Why environmentalists preffer to demonstrate "stupidity", not "smartness"?
3. Why politics, industry and ordinary citisens must act accordind delibirate stupidity, at least, basing on those incomplete models?
4. Can you (or anybody else) "guarantee" that there will be no big volcanic erruption this year, with further "year(s) without summer" and "global cooling"?
5. Isn't it better to make ourselves better prepared to any climate change, rather than try to stop unstopable?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jan 19, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



Acknowledge your weird watermelon cult and religion?......what for ?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 20, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...


 

What do you think these models include?

Don't you think they take into account trends in deforestation? Solar cycles, etc?

Models use pasdt/existing trends to predict based on these trends.
That is  why you see " If we do not make changes, our future could look like..."

Sure, we can have a really active volcanic activity.  So what?
Are you saying we should ignore AGW because of some unforeseen possible event?

Furthermore it is not unstoppable.  Man made emissions are driving it so reducing man made emissions will reduce it.

And yes, you are stupid to think otherwise.


----------



## RealDave (Jan 20, 2020)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


It is science, dumbass.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 20, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Banks caused the Great Recession.*
> 
> How?


*Negative amortization?*





Causes of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis

"Predatory lending refers to the practice of unscrupulous lenders, to enter into 'unsafe' or 'unsound' secured loans for inappropriate purposes.[55] 

"A classic bait-and-switch method was used by Countrywide, advertising low interest rates for home refinancing. 

"Such loans were written into mind-numbingly detailed contracts and then swapped for more expensive loan products on the day of closing. 

"Whereas the advertisement might have stated that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid. 

"This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated."

Causes of the Great Recession - Wikipedia


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 20, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> Ok. You say, that there is the "stupid" AGW-theory, and "smart" AGW-theory, so there are some questions:
> 1. Pls, show us a "smart" AWG-model, which include data about water vapour, clouds, farming, forestation/deforestation, fertilizers, fishing, whaling, Milancovich periods, volcanic eruptions and so on.
> 2. Why environmentalists preffer to demonstrate "stupidity", not "smartness"?
> 3. Why politics, industry and ordinary citisens must act accordind delibirate stupidity, at least, basing on those incomplete models?
> ...



1] Use SB, that covers all those factors ...
2] More votes ...
3] That must be a UK thing, here in the US we act however we want ...
4] Sure, I can do that ... no climate changing volcanic eruptions this year ...
5] The climate's not changing ... 

Sounds to me you've been fooled again ... some pretty inane questions there, buck-o ... AGW theory only addresses global warming, there's no climate change involved ... the most recent IPCC report has us only warming a couple degrees in 100 years ... so why all the fuss? ...


----------



## Redfish (Jan 20, 2020)

Humans pollute the air and water, pollution does not change the climate------------------end of story.


moral of the story-----------fight pollution, forget the faux religion of AGW.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2020)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



_"Whereas the advertisement might have stated that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid. _

If you thought an ad for a mortgage at 1% or 1.5% meant a fixed rate mortgage, you may be too dumb to buy a house.

_"This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated."_

If you didn't notice your loan included negative amortization, you're definitely too dumb to buy a house.


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 20, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. You say, that there is the "stupid" AGW-theory, and "smart" AGW-theory, so there are some questions:
> ...


WTF is SB?


> 2] More votes ...


Who needs the votes of fools? Do you want be in the same camp with the fools?


> 3] That must be a UK thing, here in the US we act however we want ...


This ideology is a global problem. Those pests almost killed american nuclear industry.


> 4] Sure, I can do that ... no climate changing volcanic eruptions this year ...


1:200, that you are wrong, there will be a big erruption and global cooling. But there is only 1:200000 chance, that the global warming will be really catastrophic (like it was in early Eemian) for this year (and 1:2000 for this century).



> 5] The climate's not changing ...


Everything changes, you know.



> Sounds to me you've been fooled again ... some pretty inane questions there, buck-o ... AGW theory only addresses global warming, there's no climate change involved ... the most recent IPCC report has us only warming a couple degrees in 100 years ... so why all the fuss? ...


 Global Warming is not a problem at all. The suicidal neo-paganic eco-religion is a problem.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 20, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> WTF is SB?



Stefen-Boltzmann law ... the basis of AGW theory ... something you should probably learn about before you comment on the theory based on that law ... 

In light of the above, I see no reason to reply to any of your other comments ... you have your answers, I don't have time to walk you through them ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > WTF is SB?
> ...



Yet another example of the utter shoddiness of climate sceince.  You can't rightly apply the SB law to gasses.  All permutations of the law are based in part on the area of the radiator...what exactly is the area of a gas?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 20, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Yet another example of the utter shoddiness of climate sceince.  You can't rightly apply the SB law to gasses.  All permutations of the law are based in part on the area of the radiator...what exactly is the area of a gas?



Surface temperature ... and a surface is an area, Earth is 196 million sq miles ... and this is astrophysics, not climate science ... 

Shine a light on the bulb of a thermometer ... the temperature goes up some then stops ... the new temperature depends strictly on the power of the light ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another example of the utter shoddiness of climate sceince.  You can't rightly apply the SB law to gasses.  All permutations of the law are based in part on the area of the radiator...what exactly is the area of a gas?
> ...



So are you going to say that the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince does not depend on the SB law?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 21, 2020)

SSDD said:


> So are you going to say that the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince does not depend on the SB law?



You don't believe in the radiative nature of radiation ... remember ... thus you don't know what SB is or isn't ... remember ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So are you going to say that the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince does not depend on the SB law?
> ...


Yet another non answer...are you saying that the SB law doesn't play a part in the radiative greenhouse effect equations....

And I'm still waiting to hear about why back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 21, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Yet another non answer...are you saying that the SB law doesn't play a part in the radiative greenhouse effect equations....
> And I'm still waiting to hear about why back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum.



The greenhouse effect is quantified by the emissivity value in SB ... 
The causitive agent in back radiation is the fluid medium ...


----------



## Silver Cat (Jan 21, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > WTF is SB?
> ...


"The *Stefan–Boltzmann law* describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature."

So, how does it describe an interelation between number of whales and greenhouse effect? Should we kill whales or save them to warm our planet better?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 21, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> "The *Stefan–Boltzmann law* describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature."
> So, how does it describe an interelation between number of whales and greenhouse effect? Should we kill whales or save them to warm our planet better?



In this context, we use the grey body form where temperature is described in terms of input power ... *T^4 = S(1-a)/4eo* (where T = equilibrium temperature, S = solar constant, a = albedo, e = emissivity and o = Stefen-Boltzmann constant)

Baleen whales consume phytoplankton, which in turn scrubs the atmosphere of CO2 ... thus more whales, more atmospheric CO2 ... that interrelationship? ... that's just a joke, no one really thought we should be nuking the whales ... 
 ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another non answer...are you saying that the SB law doesn't play a part in the radiative greenhouse effect equations....
> ...


And the non answers roll on.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

He probably should gave added “or just parroting what you heard somewhere Lise and probably what fooled you.

any presence of the SB law in the calculations suggesting back radiation are a misuse of the SB law.  

and about your claim that back radiation is not possible in a vacuum...still waiting for an explanation of why that might be.  Simply admitting that using misspoke is a valid and rational answer.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Silver Cat said:
> ...



look at the SB Law in any of its forms...in any form the area of the radiator is required...you can’t effectively calculate the area of a gas...a gas is not even a gray body.  Climate science believes that it can rightly pretend that laters of gasses in the atmosphere are gray bodies...they aren’t.

there is a physical law which deals with the temperature of air but they don’t want to use it because it wouldn’t allow them yo demonize CO2.  You can predict the temperature here, and on any other planet in the solar system with the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws...you can only predict the temperature of the earth with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and then only if you apply a made up and constantly changing fudge factor.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Silver Cat said:
> 
> 
> > "The *Stefan–Boltzmann law* describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature."
> ...


Got a reference for that bastardized equation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2020)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



_If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein_

Einstein believed in two-way flow of energy.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 22, 2020)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There's a thread pinned to the top of the Environment Forum that has numerous simple explanations ... many of which are directed specifically toward you ... through it all, you've rejected the continuous field nature of electromagnetism ... Maxwell, J.C.; _A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field_; Proceedings of the Royal Society; 1865 ... only matter produces this field, and by definition a vacuum is the lack of matter ... there's no field in a vacuum to redirect the energy back to it's source ... whereas the atmosphere is of matter, and generates this field and allows for back radiation to occur ... force is equal to mass times acceleration whether you believe it or not ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



So easily fooled.  M as well was obviously spe as long to theoretical perfect vaccum perfectly devoid of matter...guess you didn't notice that there was matter present in the vaccum chamber of the experiment?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 22, 2020)

SSDD said:


> So easily fooled.  M as well was obviously spe as long to theoretical perfect vaccum perfectly devoid of matter...guess you didn't notice that there was matter present in the vaccum chamber of the experiment?



Force equals mass times acceleration ... for one millionth the mass, we have one millionth the force, for the same acceleration ... one millionth the back radiation, did we scale our thermometer to a millionth of a degree? ... 

For the record:  Our idealized perfect blackbody does radiate into a perfect vacuum devoid of matter ... sometimes I don't think you appreciate that fact well enough ...


----------



## Jitss617 (Jan 22, 2020)




----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 23, 2020)

Jitss617 said:


> View attachment 302009



Padding your numbers for this month's top poster? ... it would be awful if you had to give up your princess crown ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So easily fooled.  M as well was obviously spe as long to theoretical perfect vaccum perfectly devoid of matter...guess you didn't notice that there was matter present in the vaccum chamber of the experiment?
> ...



So now you are going to try to equate back radiation with work?  Can work not be done in a vacuum either.  I suppose in your mind that mades some sort of sense...or maybe it did till you actually wrote it down...congratulations on the epic fail.

It is just that sort of mewling attempt at making unreality real that flacalten opened up the denier thread...I suppose he was just embarrassed at the complete inability of you believers (and himself) to offer up anything like a rational, reality based defense of said beliefs.  The thread its self is nothing less than a bald faced admission of defeat.   You have invested so much faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models that you have come to accept them as real and actually try to apply them to reality and reality slaps the theoretical explanations down...

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240For the record:  Our idealized perfect blackbody does radiate into a perfect vacuum devoid of matter ... sometimes I don't think you appreciate that fact well enough ...[/QUOTE]

For the record, you should at least try to differentiate between what is reality and what is unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable...and stop grasping at such feeble straws.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 23, 2020)

This is what's observed, so it's been tested and measured ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2020)

SSDD said:


> You can predict the temperature here, and on any other planet in the solar system with the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws...you can only predict the temperature of the earth with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and then only if you apply a made up and constantly changing fudge factor.


The ideal gas law and the gravitation effect can only determine the lapse rate, which is a slope. The insolation is not enough to determine the temperature at the surface of any planet. You need to consider the atmospheric composition of GHGs and the total energy absorbed in the atmosphere and on the surface of the planet. We already went through that here: Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

.


----------



## Yarddog (Jan 23, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...






Just relax and enjoy an IguanaPOP, were doing better than all the other large countries when it comes to pollution.... and Co2.  Any policy we push through in the next five years would have ZERO effect on what China and India are doing right now


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> This is what's observed, so it's been tested and measured ...



Observation from above the atmosphere...is back radiation now radiation going into space?  So CO2 absorbs and emits radiation....who ever said it didn't?  Clearly none of that radiation being absorbed and emitted is being trapped as there is no upper tropospheric hot spot.....which would be the inevitable and inescapable result of energy being "trapped".

In addition, the amount of IR escaping into space is increasing...not decreasing which would be another inescapable effect of energy being "trapped" in the atmosphere.

I guess when you believe in fantasy, all manner of things seem make sense...particularly if they are illustrated in bright, primary colors...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can predict the temperature here, and on any other planet in the solar system with the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws...you can only predict the temperature of the earth with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and then only if you apply a made up and constantly changing fudge factor.
> ...



So you like to say.....except there are several gas giants out there in the solar system with little to no greenhouse gasses in their atmosphere, whose pressure induced high temperatures say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Get over being fooled and look at reality if you can bear it....


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2020)

SSDD said:


> So you like to say.....except there are several gas giants out there in the solar system with little to no greenhouse gasses in their atmosphere, whose pressure induced high temperatures say that you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Get over being fooled and look at reality if you can bear it....



You misunderstood me. It is certainly true that gravitational pressure causes the temperature to increase linearly with lower altitude. I'm not arguing against that. But that alone is not enough to predict what the temperature might be at the solid surface. Gas giant's don't have a known "surface". 

I'm talking about Venus or earth. As I said before, for those planets you need to consider the atmospheric composition of GHGs and the total energy absorbed in the atmosphere and on the surface of the planet in order to understand the surface temperature.

We already went through that here: Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you like to say.....except there are several gas giants out there in the solar system with little to no greenhouse gasses in their atmosphere, whose pressure induced high temperatures say that you don't know what you are talking about.
> ...


And yet the ideal gas laws plus incoming solar accurately predict the temperature of Venus and earth...so clearly that alone is enough to predict the temperature since it is what determines the temperature.  Once again...the greenhouse effect hypothesis predicts that Venus will be 54 degrees warmer than earth because 18 doubling of CO2 would give us the same concentration of CO2 as Venus ant it says that the temperature increases 3 degrees for every doubling.  What a laugh...and you believe that quackery.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2020)

SSDD said:


> And yet the ideal gas laws plus incoming solar accurately predict the temperature of Venus and earth...so clearly that alone is enough to predict the temperature since it is what determines the temperature.


No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.



SSDD said:


> Once again...the greenhouse effect hypothesis predicts that Venus will be 54 degrees warmer than earth because 18 doubling of CO2 would give us the same concentration of CO2 as Venus ant it says that the temperature increases 3 degrees for every doubling. What a laugh...and you believe that quackery.


No I don't believe that quackery. Comparing the atmospheric effects of Venus and Earth like that is not valid physics. It's just juggling numbers naively. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.



And yet...it does..  The fact is inescapable...  you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.



SSDD said:


> No I don't believe that quackery. Comparing the atmospheric effects of Venus and Earth like that is not valid physics. It's just juggling numbers naively.
> 
> .



Of course you do..and you have a whole litany of other quackery that you believe as well..

And Occam says that the simplest answer is probably the right answer...the simplest answer gives you a pretty accurate prediction...the other answer doesn't even get close unless you toss in an ad hoc fudge factor.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 25, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.
> ...



*one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...*

Right, because the amount of GHGs doesn't change a thing...…..LOL!


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 25, 2020)

SSDD said:


> And yet...it does..  The fact is inescapable...  you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.



*PV = nRT* where P = pressure, V = volume, n = mass (in moles), R = ideal gas constant, and T = temperature

If we are to use this equation to solve for temperature, we'll need a value for volume ... what is the volume of Earth's atmosphere? ... what is the volume of the Jovian atmosphere? ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.
> ...



Yes, I remember. One of your references had four fudge factors with no science explanation here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
Another reference you gave said the surface temperature was "baked in".

If those two references aren't quackery I don't know what is. The problem is that you deny the basic laws of physics and substitute your own, which are self contradictory.

.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 25, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> If those two references aren't quackery I don't know what is. The problem is that you deny the basic laws of physics and substitute your own, which are self contradictory.



Bullshit ... he's never substituted any basic law, not once has he even even tried to pronounce his own theory ... he speaks from a position of no basic laws ... it's all willy-nilly with his claims ... it just has to be opposite what he's being told ... watch:

"The sky is yellow and the sun is blue"


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...*
> 
> Right, because the amount of GHGs doesn't change a thing...…..LOL!



Exactly...GHG's other than water vapor don't change a thing other than the total mass of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet...it does..  The fact is inescapable...  you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.
> ...



Interesting...you accept hokey atmospheric math which requires that you assign an area to the atmosphere, but you don't think we know the volume of the atmosphere?  It may come as a surprise to you, but the US standard atmosphere, which comes pretty close to predicting the temperature here relies entirely on the ideal gas laws...you think they might have calculated the volume of the earth in order to do the math?  

All you really need do is visit the NASA planetary fact sheet..

Planetary Fact Sheet

This one is right up there with the idea that back radiation, if there were such a thing, couldn't happen in a vacuum...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



And yet, they provided accurate temperature predictions, while your quackery doesn't even get close unless the fudge factor is constantly updated...and of course you don't know what quackery is..if you did, you wouldn't talk at all since that seems to be all you are capable of expressing.

Here is a reference to the fudge factor quackery.....

Science Errors: How Incompetents Took Over Science and Left Wreckage and Ruin

Careful that you don't read to far...the rationality contained there would probably make your head explode.  Especially when he starts taking apart the whole back radiation nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > If those two references aren't quackery I don't know what is. The problem is that you deny the basic laws of physics and substitute your own, which are self contradictory.
> ...



Making statements based on very limited reading...the fact is that you have little to no idea of how many pages have been spent discussing the topic and specific discussion of the only workable theory to explain the temperature here...personally, I have no theory...unlike you warmers who seem to have any number of personal hypotheses because you don't like the actual greenhouse hypothesis so you toss out the parts you don't like and substitute them for something that you believe sounds plausible...

The theory I subscribe to is a theory because it has actual experimental evidence in support...unlike the greenhouse hypothesis which is still seeking the first piece of empirical evidence in its support....


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 26, 2020)

SSDD said:


> come as a surprise to you, but the US standard atmosphere, which comes pretty close to predicting the temperature here relies entirely on the ideal gas laws...you think they might have calculated the volume of the earth in order to do the math?
> 
> All you really need do is visit the NASA planetary fact sheet..
> 
> ...



So ... what is the volume of Earth's atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > come as a surprise to you, but the US standard atmosphere, which comes pretty close to predicting the temperature here relies entirely on the ideal gas laws...you think they might have calculated the volume of the earth in order to do the math?
> ...



I provided you with a link to the planetary fact sheet...are you too lazy to visit?  Or perhaps google the topic?  You try to come across as having a clue then ask to be spoon fed basic information?  It isn't my fault that you can't defend the corny science you believe in...take your anger out on those who tricked you into believing...not me.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 26, 2020)

SSDD said:


> I provided you with a link to the planetary fact sheet...are you too lazy to visit?  Or perhaps google the topic?  You try to come across as having a clue then ask to be spoon fed basic information?  It isn't my fault that you can't defend the corny science you believe in...take your anger out on those who tricked you into believing...not me.



I don't think you how to find this data ... nor do I think you know what it means ... I'm curious about your 8th grade multiplication skills ... they seem absent in light of your recent comments ...

You're just going to have to put some thought into this ... from your link ... what is the volume of the Earth's atmosphere? ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 26, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


From your link;






The point of CO2 saturation is so low in our atmosphere that it sheds almost 100% of the energy received, in the total atmosphere, each revolution of earths rotation, at the equator.  this is why we have glacial poles as they radiate far more energy than they receive.

This is just one more area that GCM's fail in predicting anything accurately beyond 12 hours. They are incapable of predicting energy losses of even one rotation of the earth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 26, 2020)

From SSDD's link;





And this is the result of using a "Fudge Factor"..  It erases OBSERVED and VERIFIED (by repetition) that CO2 was saturated beyond its ability to stop all radiation, even at levels of 5,000ppm.

The AGW models fail on every level.  The lack of an atmospheric hot spot show the total failure..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 26, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...*
> ...



*GHG's other than water vapor don't change a thing*

Thanks for admitting your previous claim was incorrect.

*one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...*

What kind of adjustment do you think you need to make now to account for water vapor?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 26, 2020)

SSDD said:


> And yet, they provided accurate temperature predictions, while your quackery doesn't even get close unless the fudge factor is constantly updated...and of course you don't know what quackery is..if you did, you wouldn't talk at all since that seems to be all you are capable of expressing.
> 
> Here is a reference to the fudge factor quackery.....
> 
> ...



The sources you previously quoted did not predict anything. This source only did curve fitting with four fudge factors,
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
Nikolov and Zellar gave no explanation. All they did was curve fitting of temperature and atmosphere to a formula with these four fudge factors in their equation 12(b):
0.174222, 0.150275, 5.25043 10⁻¹⁵, 3.32375.
That looks pretty fudgey..Parameterized curve fitting is not science.

Another of your sources said the temperature was "baked in" with no explanation of what that meant.

Your reference to Science Errors has this as the second sentence in the beginning of text:
_All of physics beyond Newton's laws is in error...._​What a way to start a physics discussion!!! His denial of physics is no different than yours. Wow. Talk about quackery.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 26, 2020)

Here is another amusing gem by Gary Novak that you science deniers embrace. He redefines *energy* to be *momentum!!!*
Science Errors, Gary Novak.

_Simple and unquestionable mathematical proof shows energy has been misdefined in physics.

The representation of kinetic energy being used is mass times velocity squared (*½mv²*), when it should be mass times velocity unsquared (*mv*), momentum.

The consequence is that everything in physics which involves energy is in error, which includes at least 90% of physics._​
Do you guys actually believe that "new" science, that 90% of physics is in error?
.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 26, 2020)

I though energy was mass times speed squared ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> I though energy was mass times speed squared ...


So.....

Is energy a wave without mass or a particle which has mass?  Or is it a combination of the two?

If we take this equation to its root, it is a particle with mass.  Or was Einstein incorrect?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 26, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> _All of physics beyond Newton's laws is in error...._


Science is the questioning of everything....  Why do you hate people doing real science?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 26, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > I though energy was mass times speed squared ...
> ...



You still need to post the mass of a photon...…...and the charge.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jan 26, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



*The great thing about the Climate Change Apocalypse is that it on affects people with a 75IQ or lower.



 *


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jan 26, 2020)

you will obey your master


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jan 26, 2020)

Greta should not be allowed to use electricity and the internet for just one day.
It would destroy her crazy brainwashed left wing crackpot world.


----------



## DGS49 (Jan 26, 2020)

Here't the problem in a nutshell.

You tell me a catastrophe is coming.

What has to come next is, "If you do X, Y, and Z, the catastrophe can be averted."  You are giving me A thru Z, much of which is painful and expensive... and telling us *we must do this*.

But unless everybody else on the planet does the same thing, it won't work, and we KNOW that the biggest emitters on the planet are not on board (India and China), except on paper, and even the most enthusiastic countries (Japan & Germany) are moving in the wrong direction due to their idiotic decisions to abandon NUCLEAR POWER.  So the fact is that, even if we do A thru Z, the effect will be negligible.  If the U.S. does everything conceivable while everyone else does what they are obviously doing, the effect of our efforts on global temperatures as of 2100 will be about a quarter of one degree C.  B.F.D.

And you refuse to acknowledge the BENEFITS of warming, which I am enjoying at this very moment.  My gas bills are down, I played golf last week, I've ridden my motorcycle 8-10 times since the time when I would normally have covered it for WInter.  I haven't run my snow blower since February (except to confirm that it's running properly).  I am personally fine with global warming, no matter what you call it.

The human race will develop engineering solutions to the problems that warming brings that cannot be resolved by simpler means.  I hope we can profit by bringing those engineering solutions to the rest of the world.

Take your global warming hysteria and the teenaged twit who delivers it, and shove it where the sun don't shine.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 26, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Is energy a wave without mass or a particle which has mass?  Or is it a combination of the two?
> 
> If we take this equation to its root, it is a particle with mass.  Or was Einstein incorrect?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> You still need to post the mass of a photon...…...and the charge.



Wait ... what? ...

Photon ≠ kinetic energy ... what the hell are you two talking about? ... in Newtonian physics, matter ≠ energy ... you're confusing E=mc^2, that's strictly Einstienian physics ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Is energy a wave without mass or a particle which has mass?  Or is it a combination of the two?
> ...



Billy has previously claimed that photons have charges and mass.
And that they can be repelled by covailent [sic] bonds.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 26, 2020)

Ah ... didn't mean to interrupt ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 26, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > _All of physics beyond Newton's laws is in error...._
> ...


So you believe Gary Novak? He said,
_Simple and unquestionable mathematical proof shows energy has been misdefined in physics.

The representation of kinetic energy being used is mass times velocity squared (*½mv²*), when it should be mass times velocity unsquared (*mv*), momentum.

The consequence is that everything in physics which involves energy is in error, which includes at least 90% of physics.
_​You believe that 90% of physics is in error because they should have defined energy as mass times velocity? You believe Newton is right and Relativity is wrong? That is what you are implying.
_._​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 26, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Ah ... didn't mean to interrupt ...



It's impossible to interrupt Billy's idiocy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2020)

Since physics has become a "science" of models, how would anyone ever catch the error in reality?  They look at models as if they were real, and publish articles describing the fiction they derive from models as if it were real.  There is a reason that the field of physics is in crisis.....whether you choose to believe it or not.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > _All of physics beyond Newton's laws is in error...._
> ...



They are operating from a position of faith...there isn't much place for questioning faith...if you ask for actual empirical evidence in support of faith, you are a filthy heretic worthy of imprisonment...or worse.....and asking for what they can't provide makes them feel bad...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2020)

DGS49 said:


> Here't the problem in a nutshell.
> 
> You tell me a catastrophe is coming.
> 
> ...



I have been asking for decades exactly what the ideal temperature is for life on this planet....they never answer.  You can bet that it isn't the relatively cool temperatures the earth is experiencing now.  We haven't even warmed completely out of the little ice age yet.  I would suppose that the catastrophic 2 degrees they are predicting would put us two degrees closer to the ideal temperature for life on planet earth.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 27, 2020)

2aguy said:


> Now this is funny.........I live in a place that used to have mile high glaciers.....now we don't. This happened long before man knew what a car was.......
> 
> You secular religious fanatics would be funny if you weren't so prone to murdering 10s of millions of people ....



secular religious?  Really?  

YOu do realize it took thousands of years to end the last ice age... as oppose to the damage we are doing now that is happening in decades.  

Stick to your Gun Fetish, Dick Tiny.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 27, 2020)

SSDD said:


> They are operating from a position of faith...there isn't much place for questioning faith...if you ask for actual empirical evidence in support of faith, you are a filthy heretic worthy of imprisonment...or worse.....and asking for what they can't provide makes them feel bad...



Oh, look, hte Koch-Sucker is back, repeating Koch Brother lies. 

David Koch in Hell... "Is it hot in here?"


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 27, 2020)

SSDD said:


> They are operating from a position of faith...there isn't much place for questioning faith...if you ask for actual empirical evidence in support of faith, you are a filthy heretic worthy of imprisonment...or worse.....and asking for what they can't provide makes them feel bad...



We were discussing the Ideal Gas Law ... what is the volume of Earth's atmosphere? ...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 27, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Since physics has become a "science" of models, how would anyone ever catch the error in reality?  They look at models as if they were real, and publish articles describing the fiction they derive from models as if it were real.  There is a reason that the field of physics is in crisis.....whether you choose to believe it or not.


Physics has not *become* a science of models. Classical and modern physics were *always* a science of models. The “reality” of nature falls under metaphysics not physics. 

The models of basic physics are accurate to 1 part per billion or trillion and accurately describe the mechanics of nature in a functional way. But to design a global positioning system, a Large Hadron Collider, a gravitational wave detector, or micro-electronics, “reality” is not needed. Basic physics should not be confused with metaphysics. 

Physics is not in crisis. Only the people that deny physics are in crisis, whether they know it or not.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 27, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Science is evidenced belief. Faith is belief without evidence. The difference between the two should not be confusing. Your point about heresy no longer applies. It hasn't for hundreds of years. 


.​


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 27, 2020)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I believe that we have but 10% of the knowledge we need to make any claim.  Science is the questioning of all hypothesis.  Had we stopped asking questions the earth would still be flat and the sun would still revolve around the earth.

So is a photon a particle or a wave?  Theories, modeled, confirm both possibilities, which one is correct?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 27, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*So is a photon a particle or a wave?*

What is its mass and charge?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 27, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> I believe that we have but 10% of the knowledge we need to make any claim. Science is the questioning of all hypothesis. Had we stopped asking questions the earth would still be flat and the sun would still revolve around the earth.


OK so you think 90% of physics is in error, but you haven't answered this:
_The representation of kinetic energy being used is mass times velocity squared (*½mv²*), when it should be mass times velocity unsquared (*mv*), momentum._​_


Billy_Bob said:



			So is a photon a particle or a wave? Theories, modeled, confirm both possibilities, which one is correct?
		
Click to expand...

_
That is supposed to be an embarrassing question asked by beginning students of physics. You asked that many times. The question itself is wrong because it assumes the nature of what EM energy is, while asking what is it. 

Quantum field theory gives the correct mathematical picture. EM radiation is a field. It has the property of waves while in space, and a discrete nature while interacting with matter. The discrete amount can be calculated for simple systems such as in interaction with an atom, but the discrete nature must be handled statistically in complex systems as discovered by Planck in black body radiation. That discrete amount of interaction energy defines what is meant by a photon.

Thinking of a photon whizzing through space and hitting something gives a usable model for some cases, but that picture does not capture the essence of the deeper nature of EM energy.
.​


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 27, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I gave you the answers straight from the NASA website, you  never accepted it and went on asking the same questions over and over......., it is time to stop this charade you are running on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 27, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*I gave you the answers straight from the NASA website,* 

There is no NASA website that shows a photon has a charge or a mass.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 27, 2020)

I did some poking around ... the mass of a 1.25µm photon is 1.2 x 10^-19 joules ... [raises eyebrows] ... no, haven't the foggiest idea what that means ... but it's from a ,gov website so it's gotta be true ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> I did some poking around ... the mass of a 1.25µm photon is 1.2 x 10^-19 joules ... [raises eyebrows] ... no, haven't the foggiest idea what that means ... but it's from a ,gov website so it's gotta be true ...



Unsure why you wouldn't believe it....you certainly believe sideshow hucksterism which strains credulity more than a statement about a theoretical particle...photons are theoretical particles you know...or did you think the story about them being used as a place holder till such time as we can actually explain the properties of light was real?

I couldn't find your bright primary color graph, but you presented one like this as what was observed and recorded insofar as the earth's absorption spectra..  Of course, this isn't was observed, and recorded...it is the heavily manipulated version of what was observed and recorded and used to fool those who are more than willing to be fooled.







Here is the same graph...unmanipulated...in this one we will only look at CO2...but you can apply the same principles to any of the so called greenhouse gasses, they were manipulated across the board for your enjoyment and deception..






As you can see the peak emission is around 10 microns.  The CO2 spectra is around 15 microns.  That is much further down from the peak than your fake graph which was, after all, designed to fool you.  

The first clue is that the 15 micron wave band  is peaked around 190K and not the 294K which your fake graph depicts.

Why?  Deliberately deceptive manipulation of the data....nothing more....nothing less

Note they are using wave numbers, not wavelengths.  A wave number is the inverse of a wavelength.  They tipped the data upside down ( a common practice in climate pseudoscience) to create the misinformation they wish to create.  For 1 micron, you do 1/(1000000*100) ti get the 10,000 wave number.  This number represents the number to times a 1 micron wavelength can fit into one centimeter as you see on the y axis.  See where this might be going?

So if you use actual wavelengths rather than wave numbers and manipulated data, here is what your graph should look like for CO2..  You could add a couple of more equally unimpressive lines for CO2 if you like, but you probably get the idea...The graph below is what was actually observed, and measured from the top of the atmosphere in the peak radiation frequency of CO2...not nearly as impressive if you want to support a false narrative so they provide you with the other graph so that you an be a good little bot, and go forth and post the misinformation in as many places as possible.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 28, 2020)

SSDD said:


> ...photons are theoretical particles you know ...



Bosons are supersymmetric ... that's not normally taught in Middle School ...

Please ... back to our 8th grade math ... what is the volume of the atmosphere that we should use in the Ideal Gas Law ... you made a claim, you need to back it up ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...photons are theoretical particles you know ...
> ...





It is calculated to be _4,200,000,000 cubic kilometers.  Very interesting that you were unable to find that for yourself...or know that since the US standard atmosphere is based on the ideal gas laws, that the volume of the atmosphere could be gathered from the formula alone.  It is, after all, according to you 8th grade stuff.

Considering some of the things you seem to believe, maybe you should go back a bit further than 8th grade.

_


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



So over the course of this thread your 7 stats about climate change have been shown to be nothing more than hysterical, hyperventilating hand waving.  Got any other "stats" that you need to have shot down?


----------



## RealDave (Jan 29, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


Shown by whom?  Certainly not a pretend climatologist like you.

I'll take NASA.  You can take Limbaugh.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 29, 2020)

SSDD said:


> It is calculated to be _4,200,000,000 cubic kilometers.  Very interesting that you were unable to find that for yourself...or know that since the US standard atmosphere is based on the ideal gas laws, that the volume of the atmosphere could be gathered from the formula alone.  It is, after all, according to you 8th grade stuff.
> 
> Considering some of the things you seem to believe, maybe you should go back a bit further than 8th grade._



Of course I can find this myself ... I don't think you can, and still don't ... do you have a citation for the value you give above or did you calculate this yourself? ... if the latter, please show your work because you did something terribly wrong ... my guess is your either using the wrong value for Earth's radius (NASA's published value for volumetric mean radius is 6371 km) or you using some crazy small value for the altitude of the top-of-atmosphere ... the 7 km you used is lower than a few mountain tops and only includes 60% of the mass ... our 99.9% of the mass will be at 51 km ... please try again and see if you can arrive at the 26,000,000,000 km^3 value I got using the constants I gave ...

The US Standard Atmosphere _assumes_ a surface temperature of 15ºC ... so of course this "predicts" a surface temperature of 15ºC ... duh ... "if A is true, then A is true", that's a logical fallacy archaically called "begging the question" ... you claimed we can use the Ideal Gas Law to _predict_ this temperature ... we know the other four values, we can solve for the fifth ... or at least most of us can, so far it appears you can't ... 

That's all 10th grade math ... my apologies ... let's use your value of 4,200,000,000 km^3 and see if you can multiply that by a pressure of 101,000 pascals ... we still have the nightmare of choosing the correct mass value to match our value of R ... so if you could, go ahead and pick which ideal gas law constant value you want to use ahead of time ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 29, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*Shown by whom?*

It's easy to show how bogus some of the claims in the OP are ... less ice in the Arctic allows shipping through that region ... a rather large reduction in the costs (and carbon pollution) and with no effect on mean sea level ... are we using the word "dire" to mean beneficial? ... or is that claim hysterical, hyperventilating hand waving ...

Here's your 8th grade math assignment: 40 billion tons of CO2 increases the ppmv value by how much? ... the measured increase is 2.3 ppmv ...


----------



## RealDave (Jan 29, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Wow, yet another dumbass denier.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 29, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Wow, yet another dumbass denier.



As long as you keep your eyes closed, you can claim you've never been shown anything ...


----------



## RealDave (Jan 29, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, yet another dumbass denier.
> ...


My eyes are trained on reliable sources.

I'll believe NASA every fucking day of the week than a dumbass posting crap on USMB.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 29, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I'll believe NASA every fucking day of the week than a dumbass posting crap on USMB.



Where does NASA claim humans emitted 40 billion tons of CO2 in 2019? ... your citation in the OP is from HuffPost ... do you think HuffPost and NASA are one and the same? ... have you done the math yet? ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Look around your environment...find yourself an adult to help you read and undersand the words on these pages and have them explain to you who is providing actual science to support their position and who is providing hysterical, hyperventilating, handwaving to support theirs...then suck it up, admit defeat and go find some other hysterical, handwaving hysterics to have shot down.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Of course I can find this myself ... I don't think you can, and still don't ... do you have a citation for the value you give above or did you calculate this yourself?



Get bent...

When you start showing some actual evidence to support your beliefs rather than simply expecting me to join you in your faith or be a dupe, perhaps I may be more inclined to help you out....and of course stop making completely ridiculous statements like back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum devoid of matter when clearly the vacuum in question contained matter...that was just ridiculous...anyone capable of making that sort of error has absolutely no room to even begin making aspersions regarding anyone else's intelligence.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2020)

RealDave said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Reallty?  So far you  you have only provided option pieces which, by the way, did not refer to or link any reliable science.  Clearly you have no idea what a reliable source might look like...

And why would you believe a NASA public relations piece which is nothing more than an unreviewed opinion over peer reviewed science?  That is prima facie evidence that you really aren't able to discern between reliable sources and unreliable sources.  None of your NASA opinions referred or referenced actual science to support their opinion...they were nothing more than opinions presented by the public relations departments...that isn't science...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 30, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Get bent...
> 
> When you start showing some actual evidence to support your beliefs rather than simply expecting me to join you in your faith or be a dupe, perhaps I may be more inclined to help you out....and of course stop making completely ridiculous statements like back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum devoid of matter when clearly the vacuum in question contained matter...that was just ridiculous...anyone capable of making that sort of error has absolutely no room to even begin making aspersions regarding anyone else's intelligence.



Ah, you calculated it yourself ... so much for 8th grade math ... you and RealDave are quite a show ... carry on ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2020)

The wait continues for you to post some empirical evidence in support of your beliefs that proves more than that you are just easy to fool......waiting......waiting.....waiting....

back radiaion possible in atmosphere but not in a vacuum chamber....yuk, yuk, yuk....


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...


Climate changed when the dinosaurs were roaming the Earth too. Was that Trumps fault? We only control 15% of the pollution in the world today. Chill, FakeHypocriteDave.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 1, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



Jesus fuck you are a moron.

No one said that man is the only factor in emissions.
Today's warming is due to man's emissions.

The USA used to be a world leader.  Trump made it a laughing stock.

You must hate your own offspring.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 1, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



I'll take NASA over a dumbass poster on this board.

I'll take the majority of Climatologists over a dumbass who twists & makes up shit on other's statistics.

So Mr Expert, what makes you an expert?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 1, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 I see the environment.  Rising temperatures caused by emissions.

I read & listen to the scientists who have spoken up to ward us of this growing problem.  

The solution is obvious.

Yet nothing is done because of those who put corporate profits over  the future.  Fossil fuel industry are fighting action.  Dumbass deniers lie.

How can you deny the problem & the cause?

Are you claiming there is no climate change?  Are you claiming man made emissions are not the primary cause?

How,  How can you be this fucking stupid?

You & Rainman are two peas in a pod.  Ignorant people trying to call the real scientists liars with your mumbo jumbo bullshit.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 1, 2020)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



No one said man was the only factor.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Triggered much? I know the world is better off without people like you in it. My offspring agree.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


And no one can accurately predict how much of a factor man truly is.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 1, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I'll take NASA over a dumbass poster on this board.
> I'll take the majority of Climatologists over a dumbass who twists & makes up shit on other's statistics.
> So Mr Expert, what makes you an expert?



NASA has never claimed 40 billion tons emissions ... or do you have a cite? ...
I took a class is all ... but that's more expertise than you ...



RealDave said:


> You & Rainman are two peas in a pod.  Ignorant people trying to call the real scientists liars with your mumbo jumbo bullshit.



I've offered to discuss these 7 statistics with you ... I think Arctic icemelt is a net benefit to humans and 40 billion tons emissions is grossly exaggerated ... you're answer was fuck off ... let the real scientists speak from themselves ... they don't need you making them into liars ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



so you will take the word of a government agencies which can not, and doesn’t even make an attempt to provide any empirical evidence at all to support the proclamations they expect you to believe....but you won’t accept peer reviewed, published science which provides empirical evidence that contradicts those proclamations.

I suppose that might make sense in a politically motivated mind...but not to someone who is actually interested in the science.


And I never claimed to be an expert....but I do go to the experts who are doing the actual research and can provide empirical evidence to support the papers they are publishing.....and I don’t simply take the word of the public relations department of a government agency...and dismiss out of hand all empirical evidence that calls what those public relations departments are claiming.

Anyone who does just that is light years ahead of you in actual knowledge and the ability to distinguish science from propaganda.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I see the environment.  Rising temperatures caused by emissions.



No you don't...you imagine seeing an increase in a meaningless temperature metric...there is no such thing as a global average temperature.  If you look in various regions around the world, you don't see "global" anything happening.  In some regions you see a bit of warming...in a few more regions, you see some cooling...in most regions, you don't see much of a trend happening either towards warm or cool.  The earth hasn't even warmed out of the little ice age yet.  You have been hoodwinked into actually believing a bit of statistical sleight of hand and are so heavily invested in it that you can't even bring yourself to admit to the possibility.



RealDave said:


> I read & listen to the scientists who have spoken up to ward us of this growing problem.



That is a lie...You don't go to scientists...you read and listen to the opinion pieces put out by the public relations departments of government agencies...you can't point to any actual science, or published literature based on empirical evidence which supports those opinions and you reject out of hand any published literature based on empirical evidence which calls those opinions into question.

So no..you don't go to the science...that is a bald faced lie.  You reject science every time it is presented to you.



RealDave said:


> The solution is obvious.



The problem isn't even obvious...the problem isn't even existent...and you believe the solution is obvious...sorry dave...but you have been tricked.



RealDave said:


> Yet nothing is done because of those who put corporate profits over  the future.  Fossil fuel industry are fighting action.  Dumbass deniers lie.



Look around dave...you are the denier here...you are the one denying actual peer reviewed, published sceince based on empirical evidence in favor of the proclamations of the public relations departments of government agencies...You are the one denying science in favor of pseudoscience., and there is no way around it



RealDave said:


> How can you deny the problem & the cause?



What problem?  You claim that warming partially out of the little ice age is a problem..and that warming completely out of it would be a catastrophe?  Tell me dave, what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?  Do you know?  Of course you don't...so how can you claim a temperature problem when you have no idea what the ideal temperature is?



RealDave said:


> Are you claiming there is no climate change?  Are you claiming man made emissions are not the primary cause?



The climate is always changing...at present, the climate is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...at present, the earth has not yet warmed completely out of the little ice age...And no...man made emissions have nothing to do with it...and you have proven that you can't even provide a single shred of empirical evidence that says otherwise...



RealDave said:


> How,  How can you be this fucking stupid?



Sorry dave...but you are the one playing the part of the fool here...and the sad thing is that you don't have to..



RealDave said:


> You & Rainman are two peas in a pod.  Ignorant people trying to call the real scientists liars with your mumbo jumbo bullshit.



Let's see some real science, published by real scientists supported by empirical evidence which agrees with the opinion pieces you offer up as evidence to support your claims.  You claim to be reading real science by real scientists....lets see it...provide some actual peer reviewed published papers supporting your beliefs...some papers that are supported by actual empirical evidence...


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I see the environment.  Rising temperatures caused by emissions.
> ...


Q.E.D. you are a total fool.

I'll take NASA.  You can take your fake crap & shove it up your ass.

" The climate is always changing therefore man can not possibly be at fault" Excuse is just plain dumber than shit.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  YES.  I'll take NASA, I'll take reputable climatologists.

I'll take Punsutawney Phil over you who has yet to claim any reason why anyone would believe your crap.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, yet another dumbass denier.
> ...


 My eyes are open.  

They can identify crazy assed morons who think they are climate experts.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I'll take NASA





RealDave said:


> YES.  I'll take NASA,





RealDave said:


> My eyes are open



NASA called ... they want you to quit speaking for them ...

Lord almighty ... we can all go to NASA's website and read ... do YOU have anything to add ... or is it all just copy/paste for you ... without understanding ... the plain truth is that NASA *never* claimed CO2 emissions in 2019 was 40 billion tons ... *never* ... so how many of the other 6 claims you made in the OP are bullshit? ... 

_You got two good eyes but still don't see ...
_
It's a shame you have to hide in the Middle School library during lunch hour ... it's sad even the cheerleaders like beating you up ... it's your personality ... if marijuana is lawful where you live, and your parents are agreeable, may I suggest smoking large amounts all the time ... it just got to be an improvement ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



great....let’s see some peer reviewed, published literature supported by empirical evidence which supports your beliefs...one or two papers should be a good place to start and I wager that you won’t even be able to produce that much actual science that supports what you believe.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



let’s see a single piece of empirical evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability.  If you are going to claim that man is to blame, such evidence is the bare minimum requirement and you can’t even manage a single piece.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



how...you clearly don’t read the science...you can’t provide any peer reviewed, published science which supports what you believe...you apparently have no idea what experts are publishing and reject anything that doesn’t conform to your belief.


----------



## 22lcidw (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


The beaches were supposed to be gone decades ago. Florida was supposed to be half the size or less. Lie after lie after lie. Its like the oil crisis. Fifty years ago....We have only a few years of oil left. Experts I tell you. Experts.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

22lcidw said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



If only you had any concept of how modeling works.............

If only you knew shit about oil........


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


 I read NASA &  other reliable sources.  So go fuck yourself & your phony posts.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So, since you claim man is not a factor, what is causing the current increase in the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.  Be specific.  List each source and the amount of increase in its CO2 emissions complete with empirical data verified by multiple sources.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take NASA
> ...


 NASA called.  They want you to come down & teach them about climatology since  you say they are liars.


So what is your education on this?  PHD in climatology?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*If only you knew shit about oil........ *

We can't drill our way to lower prices, eh?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > 22lcidw said:
> ...



Have we???? Did we do it???


----------



## bluzman61 (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Hey, Davey, one MORE time - Climate Change = WEATHER.  Thank you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*Have we???? *

Obama chuckled when he said it was impossible......was he lying?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You inferred he did.  Backtracking much?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



He didn't?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 2, 2020)

bluzman61 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


  Bluzman61 => moron.


----------



## bluzman61 (Feb 2, 2020)

RealDave said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Hey, Dumb Davey, once AGAIN - Climate Change = WEATHER.  You're welcome.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You keep referencing nasa....what you read at nasa isn't anything more than blogs from their public relations department...not peer reviewed, not cited, not containing evidence....just boilerplate from the alarmist community....that isn't science.

NASA has 13 data stations on the Antarctic Peninsula and all 13 of them show a cooling trend over the past 21 years...does your "nasa literature" tell you stuff like that or do they tell you that the antarctic is melting?

And I have seen nothing else from you that could rightly be construed as science and since you are only posting up what you are looking at, and material that you consider to be good, it is more than clear that you don't read the science..since you have never posted any up.

How pitiful that that was the best defense you could come up with...I answer al your questions, and you don't even attempt any sort of rebuttal...quite simply because you can't rebut them...all you can do is drag up some impotent name calling and logical fallacies.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



I have already given you all the peer reviewed published data you need to know the answer to your question...you rejected it out of hand with a bald faced lie that it came from the Koch brothers...another typical response of yours to any actual science that questions your beliefs.

But tell you what...I will walk you through it all again just as soon as you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere.

And once again, we both know that you won't be providing any such evidence because none exists, and the best you will be able to do is yet more impotent name calling and logical fallacy...I look forward to being right.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 3, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 I rejected your fake analysis.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 3, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  Sorry.  NASA overt a dumbass internet pretend scientist.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Sorry.  NASA overt a dumbass internet pretend scientist.



Still hating on NASA ... why are you picking on poor aeronautical engineers? ... 

Where does NASA claim 40 billion tons emissions? ...


----------



## flack (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Same old Dave!


----------



## RealDave (Feb 3, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry.  NASA overt a dumbass internet pretend scientist.
> ...


I do not know what NASA says on this.

Are you denying the number?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 3, 2020)

flack said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 Still fighting for truth, Justice and the American way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Obama chuckled when he said it was impossible......was he lying?


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Where does NASA claim 40 billion tons emissions? ...
> ...



This is a claim you made in the OP ... and throughout these 670 posts, you've claimed NASA backs your claims ... now you're admitting you don't know what NASA says about this ... 

Hell yeah I'm deny that number ... *8th grade math* ...

40 billion tons = 40 x 10^12 kg ... mass of the atmosphere = 5.1 x 10^18 kg ... simply dividing gives 7.8 x 10^-6 = 7.8 ppmm ... CO2 is 1.5 times denser than air ... so again we divide to get 5.2 ppmv ... what we actually measure is 2.3 ppmv ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ... you have an issue with the Law of Conservation of Mass ...

Dude ... this is really simple ... shocked you didn't know this or even bother to check ... NASA did, anybody can, why haven't you? ...

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 3, 2020)

Next up:

Where does NASA claim 15% loss of Arctic sea ice is "dire"? ... and please include how NASA administratively defines "dire" ... because that's not a science (or engineering) word ... strictly philosophical ...


----------



## RealDave (Feb 3, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


 Look  asshole, I posted an article.  I never said it was a NASA article.  That article said the tonnage.  I never said NASA said that this was the amount of CO2 emissions.

I said I believe NASA when NASA claims that climate change is real & than man is primarily responsible.

Quit blaming me because your puny, uninformed, uneducated mind can't keep this straight.

Furthermore, you ignore the amount of CO2 that is naturally removed from the atmosphere.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 3, 2020)

2aguy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


   Because the FEDERALLY managed forests were not raked.  

Yep, we heard that one already.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 3, 2020)

2aguy said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


  So it had nothing to do with the Clear Air Act.   Wow, you assfucks get dumber every day.


----------



## flack (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> flack said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Yes I am.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 3, 2020)

flack said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > flack said:
> ...


Here I thought you were a Trump supporter.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Look  asshole, I posted an article.  I never said it was a NASA article.  That article said the tonnage.  I never said NASA said that this was the amount of CO2 emissions.
> I said I believe NASA when NASA claims that climate change is real & than man is primarily responsible.
> Quit blaming me because your puny, uninformed, uneducated mind can't keep this straight.
> Furthermore, you ignore the amount of CO2 that is naturally removed from the atmosphere.



Yes ... you did post that article ... and the article is lying ... why are you posting lies and then claim NASA's got your back ... 

Yes ... aeronautical engineers are the right people to ask about climate ... look at the cool rockets they use ...

Yes ... over half human's CO2 emissions just disappear into nature ... nice, what's to worry about? ...


----------



## RealDave (Feb 3, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Look  asshole, I posted an article.  I never said it was a NASA article.  That article said the tonnage.  I never said NASA said that this was the amount of CO2 emissions.
> ...



So everyone is lying but assfuck you.

Only a total idiot on the atmosphere would claim that the Earth does not naturally absorb CO2.  

Jesus fuck, you are the dumbest person on the fucking planet.

How did we get the "hockey stick, you fucking moron?  Did our emissions overtake the planet's absorption ability?  Do ya think.

Jesus Fuck, STFU. You know nothing.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> So everyone is lying but assfuck you.
> Only a total idiot on the atmosphere would claim that the Earth does not naturally absorb CO2.
> Jesus fuck, you are the dumbest person on the fucking planet.
> How did we get the "hockey stick, you fucking moron?  Did our emissions overtake the planet's absorption ability?  Do ya think.
> Jesus Fuck, STFU. You know nothing.



Tsk tsk ... is this what you tell the boys and girls at school when they corner you? ... no wonder they like beating you up ...

Now try and focus, child, and tell us why 15% less sea ice is "dire" ...

_When I awoke, the dire wolf_
_Six hundred pounds of sin_
_Was grinning at my window_
_All I said was, "Come on in"_


----------



## bluzman61 (Feb 3, 2020)

RealDave said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Hey, Davey, ONE more time - Climate Change = WEATHER.  That's ALL you need to know.  Thank you.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I rejected your fake analysis.



One trick pony strikes again....makes hysterical claims, then rejects all science used to rebut those claims and provides nothing upon which a rejection might be seen as a rational answer....you forgot the impotent name calling after you fail to defend your claims...I like the impotent name calling.

Is that all you have?  You reject my answer?  Based on what exactly?  You certainly haven't shown any evidence at all that anything I put there was wrong...and it wasn't "my" analysis...it was peer reviewed, published paper after paper...the fact that you have absolutely nothing to offer up which suggests that any of it is wrong and yet you still reject it says all that needs to be said about you.

You are a walking talking puppet...incapable of any sort of independent thought at all....a mere tool of people who have a political agenda and not nearly bright enough to see your situation.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You haven't provided any science from nasa that goes counter to anything I have posted. You haven't posted anything like science...when you are given science that shows you wrong...you just claim NASA "something...something...something or other and pretend that you have made some sort of argument in your defense...

Got to tell you guy...you are losing the discussion you started on this thread about as badly as anyone has ever lost.  You do provide a perfect example of why the professional warmer wackos won't debate skeptics in public...

they know full well that they can't provide any actual science to support their claims while the skeptics would bury them in science...so they send poor little lost lambs like you out into the world without a clue to try and do their job for them.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

flack said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



One trick pony...and it isn't even a good trick...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

RealDave said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



But you claim to "read the science from nasa"  Are you claiming that nasa has never told you how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and how much we produce?  How might they rationally make the claim that we are to blame for rising CO2 if they have never given any numbers...

See dave...this is the problem with making claims that aren't honest...you claim to be up on the sceince and yet, you can't even produce even the most basic information from your chosen source...it is clear to everyone who is looking that you are lying every time you speak..  You don't have a clue...and you just make crap up as you go and claim that nasa said it as if that means something.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

RealDave said:


> flack said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Sorry dave...but you don't have any idea what those words mean...right off the bat, you have made it clear that you are a bald faced liar who is willing to make up whatever lie you think will help you make your case...so much for the fighting for truth part...and since justice involves truth....you are out in the cold on that one as well...and democrats wouldn't know the American Way if it bit them on the behind.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Look  asshole, I posted an article.  I never said it was a NASA article.  That article said the tonnage.  I never said NASA said that this was the amount of CO2 emissions.



You have rejected every bit of science that has been put in front of you based on your claim that nasa says this or nasa says that...what's the matter dave...caught out in a lie and don't know what to say now?



RealDave said:


> I said I believe NASA when NASA claims that climate change is real & than man is primarily responsible.



Based on what?  They haven't provided you with any actual science that would suggest to a rational, thinking person that their claim is worthy of consideration.



RealDave said:


> Quit blaming me because your puny, uninformed, uneducated mind can't keep this straight.



NEWSFLASH...it is you who is having problems keeping the various lies you have told to various people straight...you are all confused now and just lashing out in your frustration...that's the problem when everything you say is a lie...you can't keep it all straight...think about how many people you are talking to right now...and how may lies you have told them and now you are failing at juggling them all...



RealDave said:


> Furthermore, you ignore the amount of CO2 that is naturally removed from the atmosphere.



How much is naturally removed from the atmosphere and sinks remove it?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You think raking the forest floor will prevent wildfires?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

RealDave said:


> So everyone is lying but assfuck you.



In your whole life, have you ever replied to any question with something other than a logical fallacy or name calling?  Ever?

Either you can demonstrate that they are not lying by producing empirical evidence which shows that they are not lying, or you have to accept the fact that they just might be lying...in which case you look for a reasonable motive for lying...lets see...political power and multiple trillions of dollars.  You lie for free dave....what sorts of lies would you tell in order to get a little piece of a multi trillion dollar pie?



RealDave said:


> Only a total idiot on the atmosphere would claim that the Earth does not naturally absorb CO2.



Now you are just flailing around for anything that makes sense...and failing.  What natural CO2 sinks exist and how much CO2 do they absorb?



RealDave said:


> Jesus fuck, you are the dumbest person on the fucking planet.



And yet, he is making a jabbering baboon out of you...how stupid does that make you.

When someone ties your claims into knots and leaves you unable to do anything but tell more lies and call names, you imply that they must be some sort of evil genius to be able to get over on you like that...you don't claim that they are stupid...after all, they are getting the best of you so how much more stupid does that make you?



RealDave said:


> How did we get the "hockey stick, you fucking moron?  Did our emissions overtake the planet's absorption ability?  Do ya think.



What exactly is the planet earth's CO2 absorption ability....did nasa give you that number?  If they did, what is it based on?



RealDave said:


> Jesus Fuck, STFU. You know nothing.



You are losing this bad dave...bad as i have ever seen anyone lose...mindless, impotent name calling and that is the best you have..


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 4, 2020)

Nobody cares


----------



## Silver Cat (Feb 4, 2020)

More fertilizers in the water - more ocean's ability to absorb CO_2 (and more fish to feed people). Some types of "pollution" can be useful, but the greenheads will never agree with it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> More fertilizers in the water - more ocean's ability to absorb CO_2 (and more fish to feed people). Some types of "pollution" can be useful, but the greenheads will never agree with it.



Ferrtilizer run off into our water is not a good thing.  I don't think I have ever heard anyone suggest that it is.  Heck, I don't eat fish out of farm ponds, or practically any fresh water any more because of the run off.  Every other fish you catch has some sort of tumor or growth.  You think that is a good thing?


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 4, 2020)

Silver Cat said:


> More fertilizers in the water - more ocean's ability to absorb CO_2 (and more fish to feed people). Some types of "pollution" can be useful, but the greenheads will never agree with it.



The hysteria concerning "ocean acidification" has been dying off ... thankfully ... one of those slight changes that Alarmists got freaked out over ... maybe a few species of aquatic life will have trouble, but millions of other species will do just fine ... I think the doomsday scenario was pH going from 7.6 to 7.4 ... and going out to measure this showed a much greater range across each of the ocean basins ... natural fluctuations were greater ... 

Far and away, the biggest danger in our oceans is overfishing ... sifting out every living thing larger than a roof rat ... the whole notion that global warming is causing any but the very slightest of effect reaches beyond even the worst hypocrisy ... 

When carbon dioxide dissolves in water, some of it chemically reacts with the water to form carbonic acid ... and that's a very weak acid ... open a can of soda pop and drink down, there, see, super-concentrated carbonic acid is safe for human consumption ... it's sold to 8-year-old children ... so the especially dilute version in the ocean in about as meaningless as meaningless can be ...

The other acid formed with carbon dioxide in ocean water is deoxyribonucleic acid ... with this acid there also comes a myriad of other chemicals, all formed from carbon dioxide, and chemicals of all forms; more acids, esters, alcohols, amines, lipids, glycols, the list goes on ...  all this without harming life in the oceans ... indeed one could argue that deoxyribonucleic acid in our oceans is of some benefit to life ... we'll need a biologist to chime in on that claim ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2020)

[QUOTE="ReinyDays, post: 23995508, member]

The other acid formed with carbon dioxide in ocean water is deoxyribonucleic acid ... with this acid there also comes a myriad of other chemicals, all formed from carbon dioxide, and chemicals of all forms; more acids, esters, alcohols, amines, lipids, glycols, the list goes on ...  all this without harming life in the oceans ... indeed one could argue that deoxyribonucleic acid in our oceans is of some benefit to life ... we'll need a biologist to chime in on that claim ...[/quote]
DNA is formed from CO2 in the oceans...interesting...(chuckle)

Maybe crude proteins formed in the oceans first...but then proteins tend to break down...not become more complex..

Maybe RNA formed first, but RNA-derives from a polymer chain of nucleotides and no rational explanation of how those nucleotides might have formed if more complex proteins weren’t already present.

But DNA forming from sea water and CO2?...not a chance.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 4, 2020)

Carbon dioxide is absorbed into the plant cell and through photosynthesis the oxygen atoms are stripped off ... leaving behind what we call a "reduced" carbon atom ... by uncounted steps and pathways, this reduced carbon atom can eventually find itself as part of a DNA strand ... this is the idea of "primary producers", organisms that take CO2 and sunlight and make food for next link on the food chain ...

You might be surprised how much our cells have in common with single cell algae ... as though we evolved from them ... there's some basic cell functions that are shared by almost all eukaryotic life ... just look at all the enzymes identified with the Krebs Cycle ... these are hardly crude proteins, and complex proteins exist just fine within the cell membrane ... 

Almost all the carbon atoms were reduced from carbon dioxide at some point ...


----------



## RealDave (Feb 4, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I rejected your fake analysis.
> ...


 I rejected your phony analysis.  Your claims are hysterical & rejected by real climatologists.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 4, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > So everyone is lying but assfuck you.
> ...


 Sorry assfuck.  You lost.  You totally ignored the CO2 absorbed by plants, oceans. etc.

You just get dumber than that.

Now you claim no CO2 is removed from our atmosphere by absorption.

Jesus fuck, you are a certifiable moron.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 4, 2020)

SSDD said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > What Is Happening in the Ocean?[/URL]


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> Carbon dioxide is absorbed into the plant cell and through photosynthesis the oxygen atoms are stripped off ... leaving behind what we call a "reduced" carbon atom ... by uncounted steps and pathways, this reduced carbon atom can eventually find itself as part of a DNA strand ... this is the idea of "primary producers", organisms that take CO2 and sunlight and make food for next link on the food chain ...



that is a rational statement, based on fact... this however, is not

"The other acid formed with carbon dioxide in ocean water is deoxyribonucleic acid"



ReinyDays said:


> You might be surprised how much our cells have in common with single cell algae ...



Probably not.  I get that when you fancy yourself as the smartest person in the room it is hard to imagine that others are educated, but that's just one of the problems with living a fantasy.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You keep saying that.  I made no analysis.  I simply provided multiple peer reviewed, published papers which supported my position.

And I asked you to provide some actual science from climatologists which questioned the content of the published literature I provided.  You didn't, because there are no papers by climatologists which call the content of any of those papers into question.  In fact, I doubt that you could find a single published paper in which one of your experts uses empirical evidence to support a claim that human beings are responsible for any significant portion of the rise we have seen in CO2.

In short dave...you lose yet again.  You should have seen this trend developing on the first page of your post when you were unable to defend your position right out of the gate.  Just one more problem with being a bot...a talking puppet who is being used by people who have a political agenda...

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong by posting up some sort of actual science which calls either my position, or the published literature I provided into question.

I predict no such information will be forthcoming....prove me wrong....I TRIPPLE dog dare ya....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Sorry assfuck.  You lost.  You totally ignored the CO2 absorbed by plants, oceans. etc.



Poor dave....can you really not read the words that people write to you and comprehend what they are saying?  I didn't ignore anything.  I asked for you to state what the earth's total CO2 absorption capacity is and all the CO2 sinks....and your answer is plants, oceans etc.?  Is that a "sciency" answer in your book?  Is that the limit of what you know on the topic...that plants, and the ocean, and some other stuff absorb CO2?



RealDave said:


> You just get dumber than that.



Ahhhh...the impotent name calling...I love it when you show just how far you are out of your depth by resorting to name calling...The guy whose knowledge of CO2 sinks is that the plants, the oceans and some other stuff absorbs CO2 calling anyone else dumb just cracks me up.  Look up the word irony....use it in a sentence..



RealDave said:


> Now you claim no CO2 is removed from our atmosphere by absorption.



Tell me Dave, how might CO2 otherwise be removed from the atmosphere?  I can't think of a single CO2 sink of any type that doesn't absorb CO2.    Oceans absorb CO2, any biological process which removes CO2 from the air involves absorption, even the CO2 transferred to the soil after plants die involves absorption.

The question to you was what are the various CO2 sinks, and how much CO2 do they absorb?  You keep making claims about CO2...I provided you with peer reviewed papers in which the various sinks were considered and weighed against the natural and man made sources of CO2 and determined that mankind's CO2 is an insignificant portion of the total CO2 and that there is no real correlation between our CO2 output and the total atmospheric CO2 concentration.



RealDave said:


> Jesus fuck, you are a certifiable moron.



Impotent name calling, no attempt to even try and rebut anything that I have said or any of the science I have posted and you think you have effectively proved that I am a moron?

Geez dave....tell me, just what is your IQ?  Were your parents ever concerned enough to have you tested?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



So do tell me how guanine, (C10H12O6N5P) cytosine, (C9H12O6N3P), thymine, (C10H13O7N2P) and adenine, (C5H5N5) form from CO2 and H2O.

If your link is written at your reading and understanding level, and thus far, I have seen no reason to think otherwise, and truthfully, I doubt that you fully understand even that, you have answered many questions about yourself...

And by the way...there is nothing there in your link even remotely touching on the topic reinydays and I were speaking to....which further cements my belief that you don't even understand things written for children.

As this point dave, I have to say that I am beginning to feel sorry for you.  Discussing this with you is like poking at a defenseless animal in a cage...like the animal in the cage, your only defense seems to be to snarl and lash out blindly...


----------



## RealDave (Feb 5, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I am not a chemist.  You are not a climatologist.

The level of my link was directed at you.  

You & rainman evidently want to  calculate the amount of rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere by solely adding in emissions.

This is an obvious sign thaty  neither of you know shit about  pur atmosphere & how CO2 levels get to what they are.

I said you need to figure in the amount of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere & you two assfucks had as fit basically denying this as a factor.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 5, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  Total bullshit.


NASA are just rocket scientists.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I am not a chemist.  You are not a climatologist.



I never claimed to be and yet, I can provide peer reviewed, published literature from climatologists which support my position while you can provide exactly squat in terms of actual science to support yours...

And I am able to discuss chemistry as well, while you don't even understand what was written for children in the link you provided.



RealDave said:


> The level of my link was directed at you.



Except it was you who didn't even understand what was provided in the link for children you posted...that was written for kids in the 5th grade, and you didn't understand that it had nothing to do with what raineydays and i were talking about.  Your grasp of science is less than that of a 5th grader and you expect ANYONE to believe that you are able to read any actual science and determine whether it has merit or not?  How old are you dave?  10?  12?  

Clearly you are not working with anything like an adult level of understanding of any sort of science.



RealDave said:


> You & rainman evidently want to  calculate the amount of rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere by solely adding in emissions.



Again, complete failure to understand what was written...but hey, feel free to cut and paste anything from either one of us making such a claim.

Again, I predict no such cut and paste will be provided because neither of us said any such thing.  



RealDave said:


> This is an obvious sign thaty  neither of you know shit about  pur atmosphere & how CO2 levels get to what they are.



No dave..it is an obvious sign that you can't read and understand the words in front of you...but again...feel free to cut and paste any statement from either of us in which we say what you claimed.  Either you are stupid...or just a bald faced liar.



RealDave said:


> I said you need to figure in the amount of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere & you two assfucks had as fit basically denying this as a factor.



You claimed to already know...then you were challenged on that knowledge and now you are thrashing about like a scalded cat trying to make it appear as if you didn't fail to meet the challenge you were given.

Are you a liar, or are you stupid...or both?  Once again...cut and paste any such statement by either one of us...and prove that you aren't stupid, or a liar...or both.

I predict no such cut and paste will be appearing because you are in fact either stupid, a liar, or both.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


One trick pony strikes again....no rebuttal, no attempt to even try and offer up anything at all to challenge either my position or the peer reviewed, published literature I provided.

Tell me dave, does your response seem in any way smart to you?  When you make claims, I provide actual science that contradicts them...when I make claims, you don't because you can't...why do you even bother to answer if looking like an idiot child is the best you can do?  Do you enjoy being made a fool of?  Do you like having people know that you aren't very bright?  Do you think you are fooling anyone at all?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2020)

Finally....a rational response from dave....no response at all.  See dave, you can learn.  How does it feel to do the smart thing?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 6, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  Rebuttal?  You have been rebuttred a gazillkipn times & yopu juast don;tr get it.

You are a fool who thinks they know more than NASA.  So just fuck off.  If only it it were just your children & grandchildren that would suffer from your ignorance.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 6, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a chemist.  You are not a climatologist.
> ...


  Sorry but when you don't even consider the Earth's absorption of CO2, you are a fool.

The challenge we are given is to do something to help reduce the effects of Climate Change.

Instead you run in circles screaming false analysis & conspiracy theories.

The joke is not on you, it is you.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 6, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Rebuttal?  You have been rebuttred a gazillkipn times & yopu juast don;tr get it.
> 
> You are a fool who thinks they know more than NASA.  So just fuck off.  If only it it were just your children & grandchildren that would suffer from your ignorance.



Your rebuttal to one of your seven claims was that NASA didn't make that claim ... 

We were up to how NASA defines "dire" and you explaining why 15% less sea ice in the Arctic is catastrophic even when balanced against the direct sea lanes between Europe and East Asia ... 

Try and control your emotions ... your spelting is going to shit and it makes you look like a complete idiot ...


----------



## miketx (Feb 6, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



You're a lying sack.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



A gazillikipin times huh....I wager that you cant even provide either a link (if you are bright enough to manage such a feat) or the post number to a single one.

Why tell lies that are so easily caught out?  Are you really that stupid or just that big a liar?



RealDave said:


> You are a fool who thinks they know more than NASA.  So just fuck off.  If only it it were just your children & grandchildren that would suffer from your ignorance.



Sill waiting for you to produce some actual science from NASA that says I am wrong...clearly you can't do it because there is none...there is only your fantasy...


----------



## RealDave (Feb 6, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 I called NASA, they don;t know who you are.

NASA says MMGW is real & dumbass you says it isn't.

What else do I need?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 6, 2020)

miketx said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


  You fucking idiot.

Either you knew this was fake, in which case you are a fucking asshole

Or you don't, which makes you a duped fool.

Which is it?

FACT CHECK: Did a 1977 'Time' Story Offer Tips on 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age'?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 6, 2020)

miketx said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


  The real cover from 10977 you lying sack of shit.  Dumbass Mikey from Texas  proven to be a fool yet again.


----------



## miketx (Feb 6, 2020)

RealDave said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


A liar quoting a liar as proof.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 6, 2020)

miketx said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


 Well, assfuck mikey.  Why don't you go to the Time website & search for a pic of the cover in question.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 6, 2020)

This link is for dumbass mikey

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age


----------



## miketx (Feb 6, 2020)

RealDave said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


They removed it. Liars and all like you.


----------



## miketx (Feb 6, 2020)

RealDave said:


> This link is for dumbass mikey
> 
> Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age


A liar quoting lairs.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


One trick pony rides again...no answer at all...once again proven to be a liar.  How completely unsurprising is that?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 8, 2020)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 I have not lied.

You are an uninformed, pretend scientist who only uses your own fake analysis to spread untruths.

Why are you so afraid of  working to prevent the worst effects of AGW?

Are you just selfish?  Cheap?  Hate your own children?


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 8, 2020)

RealDave said:


> I have not lied.



You posted in the OP that man-kind added 40 billion tons CO2 to the atmosphere in 2019 ... that's been demonstrated as a lie ...

We're still waiting for you to explain your claim that 15% sea ice loss in the Arctic in dire ... starting with NASA's scientific definition of "dire" ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Of course you have lied dave...that is all you have done since you started the thread.  Maybe intentional, maybe out of ignorance...but you have certainly lied.  You have made all sorts of claims about what NASA has said but can't produce a single piece of actual science from NASA, or NASA scientists to back up what you have said.  That, I believe is out of ignorance and blind trust, but the fact remains that you haven't provided any actual science to support your claims.  

And what is it what you and NASA?  They are the North American Space Administration.  Climate is not what they do.  How much credibility would I have if I were offering opinions from the American Chemical Society if I was trying to make an argument about Lung Cancer.  NASA just jumped on the climate band wagon because they could get additional funding...they aren't a climate organization though, which is, in large part, why you can't find any science from them that might support your claims...of course, you won't find science from the Climate Resarch Unit, or any other real climate sceince organization either that supports the claims you make.



RealDave said:


> You are an uninformed, pretend scientist who only uses your own fake analysis to spread untruths.



More lies...see dave, lying is all that you seem to be capable of.  I am not a climate scientist and don't pretend to be.  But I am not uninformed.  I am able to provide actual peer reviewed, published science from a actual climate scientists, published in actual scientific journals to support my position and any claim that I make..you are the one who is uninformed as evidenced by the fact that you can't produce anything like real science to support your beliefs or claims...  You get your opinions from blogs, and opinion pieces put out by public relations branches of government organizations.  That isn't science and as a result, you remain uninformed.

And I haven't provided an analysis of anything...I have provide peer reviewed published literature to support my position.  If you can't even grasp that that isn't an analysis, I am afraid that I can't help you.



RealDave said:


> Why are you so afraid of  working to prevent the worst effects of AGW?



You have yet to provide any actual evidence of AGW.  I asked for just a single piece of observed measured evidence which supported the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and you can't even manage that because there isn't one single piece of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability.  Till you can show some actual evidence that mankind is driving the global climate, there is no point in talking about the effects of AGW.  Effects of a thing that isn't happening are irrelevant.  Lets see some actual evidnence of AGW, then we can talk about effects.

Speaking of that...what do you think is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?  Do you really think it is the relatively cold temperatures the earth is experiencing now in comparison to the past 10,000 years.  The present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  The earth hasn't even completely warmed out of the little ice age yet.  So tell me what is the ideal temperature for life on this planet?



RealDave said:


> Are you just selfish?  Cheap?  Hate your own children?



Emotional hyperventlating.  Asking that sort of question is like asking you if you stopped beating your wife.  Now, if I can show evidence of your wife being beaten, and you doing the beating, then I have some basis to ask the question.  You can't show any actual evidence that man is altering the global climate so no mater what I do or don't do is irrelevant to the global climate since we aren't driving it.

So now dodge all that, call some more names, tell some more lies and by all means, prove me right by continuing to not provide any actual evidence to support your claims.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 9, 2020)

RealDave said:


> In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> 
> 7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost
> 
> ...



I read though the article, it is a highly misleading, dishonest alarmist tripe, which is normal for Huffington Puffington, a science free blog.

Too bad you are too ignorant to realize you got taken in by the article which leaves out a lot of background information that would have helped you understand better what is really going on. The article was really skimpy on the details, just a series of alarmist rants for the purpose of trying to develop an army of science illiterates like you, to push a science free propaganda program.

Will respond to this dishonest narrative:

*Six Category 5 hurricanes tore through the Atlantic region in the past four years*

No mention of the Pacific region or the 12 years long major category 3+ hurricane landfall drought, or that total Tropical Storm activity is on a slow decline over the last 15-20 years.

By the way your ignorance of Category 5 Hurricanes history is made clear. There were *FOUR* in a single year 2005, two in 2007, then NONE for 9 years (*second longest streak of the last 96 years*) There were FIVE in a 3 year period (*Worst of the 20th century*) in the 1930's, or Six in six years in the 1930's.

There are no actual increase in Hurricane or Tropical Storm frequency trends, which your article completely glossed over, something you didn't notice......

There are a lot more I could say about this, but that would be too much for you to handle.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...



Like most warmer wackos, he is big on talking up the consensus, especially NASA but when you ask for even a bit of consensus science which uses empirical evidence to contradict the overwhelming body of published science we skeptics use to support our position, they find that the can't even do that.  The consensus science that they believe in is mostly a fantasy, made up....it is the science that they have never seen but believe exists because bloggers tell them that it exists and they just accept the lie as evidence.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 10, 2020)

SSDD said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Look, Mr. Pretend Climatolgist, Should I believe real climatologists & NASA or a denier like you?

And really the Skeptic crowd has no overwhelming evidence of anything.

Any moron can see the rapid rise in global temperatures.  They see the rapid rise in CO2 levels.

Even being dumbasses you know that more CO2 in the atmosphere =>  heightened greenhouse effect  => warmer temps.

What is made up about that Mr Scientist


----------



## RealDave (Feb 10, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.
> ...


  Well MS Ihatemychildren Mommy,  the article is not supposed to a complete story on climate change.  It just talks about some indicators.

And the article discusses severe hurricanes.  Not frequency of tropical storms.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 10, 2020)

2aguy said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


 So there were no laws passed to force pollution redfuctuon? Is this your claim?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 10, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Golfing Gator said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


  Marty thinks our emissions has nothing to do with Global Warming.   Marty is old & he'll be dead.  Fuck his offspring.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 10, 2020)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...




No, dumb shit.... it is part of the claim........as people get rich, they want nice things, including clean water, pollution control.....and in a free society where we have the 3 pillars.....rule of law, capitalism and democracy, we can take polluters to court and make them stop polluting....... as capitalism goes to work, pollution control is much easier....that is why China is a sewer, and the United States is cleaner.....


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2020)

RealDave said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...



I think the solutions shouldn't be left to watermelons like you. Every solution you morons come up with is less freedom, more government, and lower living standards.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 10, 2020)

martybegan said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...





Don't forget the ones who push jail, gulags.....and killing humans...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 10, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Your predictable rationalizing bullcrap comes rolling in.

I destroyed the misleading Hurricane claims, by showing it was similar cycle 85 years ago. The 1930's remains the worst decade for Category 5 Hurricanes, despite that we didn't have full ocean coverage in those days, may have missed several Category 5 Hurricanes that never got near the continents shorelines to be counted.

Your article:

*"Six Category 5 hurricanes tore through the Atlantic region in the past four years"*

My reply:

There were *FOUR* in a single year 2005, two in 2007, then NONE for 9 years (*second longest streak of the last 96 years*) There were FIVE in a 3 year period (*Worst of the 20th century*) in the 1930's, or Six in six years in the 1930's.

You didn't counter anything I wrote, but I destroyed the articles claim with hard facts.

Cheers​


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 10, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...




And the main point......the High Priests of the Man Made Global Warming cult are still buying ocean front property, flying private jets all over the place and using energy in their own homes that make whole states blush.....


----------



## RealDave (Feb 10, 2020)

2aguy said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


 Another denier thinking Obama bought a place at sea level.  I have some news, not all oceanfront homes are at sea level.  Obama's house is 10-16 feet above seal level.  

The energy SOURCE is the important factor.  Al Gore uses geothermal HVAC & buys green electricity to service his mansion.

Yes they fly to conferences where the good derived far out ranks the emisions created.

Have any more stupid comments to make?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 10, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


 Look Ms Ihatemychildren Mom, the article cited the decade of the 2000s.

Where were those hurricanes in the 1930s?  All in the Atlantic region?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 10, 2020)

2aguy said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Killing humans?  Supporting the right to choose is not supporting abortions.

Why do you not care about the Americans that will become sickened & die because of higher air pollution as Trump as allowed?


----------



## RealDave (Feb 10, 2020)

martybegan said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Poor Marty wants the freedom to fuck over furture generations.

You idiot.  The steps taken to reduce your carbon footprint will likely save you money.  You people are just too stupid to be alive.


----------



## RealDave (Feb 10, 2020)

2aguy said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



We have cleaner air because laws were written.

If what you say is true, why does trump lower standards & claim it will help businesses?  You claim they do because they know it is the right thing.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2020)

RealDave said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Bullshit on saving me money. 

I just had to spend $30 on reusable bags because the assholes in NY banned stores from giving me plastic ones as part of my purchases. 

If you commie wanna-bes get what you want, YOU are the ones who would fuck over future generations. 

Fucking watermelon.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 10, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Bullshit on saving me money.
> I just had to spend $30 on reusable bags because the assholes in NY banned stores from giving me plastic ones as part of my purchases.
> If you commie wanna-bes get what you want, YOU are the ones who would fuck over future generations.
> Fucking watermelon.



Wait ... WHAT ??? ... I'm looking at my receipt ... 5¢ for the reusable grocery bag ... maybe buy your bags in Maine next time ...


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit on saving me money.
> ...



Those aren't reusable bags.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 10, 2020)

martybegan said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Wait ... WHAT ??? ... I'm looking at my receipt ... 5¢ for the reusable grocery bag ... maybe buy your bags in Maine next time ...
> ...



I've used them four or five times already ... in all manner of different stores ... they're folded up right now beside my front door ready to be used again ... granted, they're not sturdy enough to stuff a house cat into, but I gotta wonder why you need bags that you _can_ stuff a house cat into ...

You got ripped off ... that's not the environmentalists' fault ...


----------



## martybegan (Feb 10, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



Please show me a link to the 5 cent reusable bag.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 10, 2020)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*Any moron can see the rapid rise in global temperatures.  *

What rapid rise does a moron like you see?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 10, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Look little dave child, I posted the LINK to the source showing ALL Category 5 Hurricanes in the Atlantic from 1924 onwards in my post...., too bad that you are blind.....

Your article was misleading and dishonest *BECAUSE* they left out past history of Category 5 storms in the Atlantic, left out the fact of no increase in Hurricane and Tropical storm frequency and duration. Without that 96 history, the claims of a single decade was misleading and dishonest since there is no established reference base of data that goes back to 1924 to make a case, it was all about climate alarmism propaganda.

Your science illiteracy strikes again!

It looks like I need to respond to another section of your stupid, shallow climate alarmism claim, just to show just how science illiterate you really are, and ignorant too.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 10, 2020)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



 You are promoting a dishonest claim since he is reported buying BEACHFRONT property, I have seen the title and photos of his beautiful place (I hope he enjoys it) it INCLUDES some of the beach and direct access to the water.

Barack and Michelle Obama are buying a $15M estate in Martha’s Vineyard


Photos in the link


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 10, 2020)

martybegan said:


> Please show me a link to the 5 cent reusable bag.



The Safeway web site isn't advertising them on their web site ... might be a local thing ... 



Sunsettommy said:


> Photos in the link
> 
> View attachment 305929
> View attachment 305930



Couple of things about this photo ... the house is clearly 30 to 40 feet above sea level ... it should be safe with only a two foot rise expected in the next 100 years ...

Look at the shore line ... very odd ... that's extremely non-typical of any ocean shore line I've ever seen ... see how the vegetation comes all the way down to the water, as though there were no tides ever, no storms ever, water line never changes position ... like it's a lake instead ... very odd ...


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Please show me a link to the 5 cent reusable bag.
> ...



I doubt they are "reusable" bags. The are disposable bags people re-use.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 11, 2020)

martybegan said:


> I doubt they are "reusable" bags. The are disposable bags people re-use.



"Reusable Bag ... This bag is reusable and designed for at least 125 uses ... Help protect our environment ... Please return to a participating store for recycling ... Manufactured by Advance Polybag Inc, ... Made in USA ... Phone (800) 504-0505 ... Email: servicecenter@apicorp.com"

I think the problem is that New York State is decades behind the West Coast when it comes to these things ... just a backwards third-world social shithole ... one can die just touching the East River, yuck ...

Just admit you got ripped off blind ... maybe be more watchful in the future ... $30 for a grocery bag is crazy, where's your common sense? ...

(Wow, even instructions on how to preform a post-partum abortion with it, that's maybe too liberal for me)


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt they are "reusable" bags. The are disposable bags people re-use.
> ...



it was $30 for 6 bags with a capacity of 40lbs each. If I am going to be forced to buy one, it's going to one I can use to make 1 trip only between the car and my house. 

And the east river is fine, sorry, I work in Wastewater/Water engineering and know more than you on this. 

The issue is FORCING Me to get bags when i was just fine with the gratis ones provided by the store.


----------



## ReinyDays (Feb 11, 2020)

martybegan said:


> it was $30 for 6 bags with a capacity of 40lbs each. If I am going to be forced to buy one, it's going to one I can use to make 1 trip only between the car and my house.



Ah ... the truth comes out ... they were $5 per bag ... and for a higher quality ... 



martybegan said:


> And the east river is fine, sorry, I work in Wastewater/Water engineering and know more than you on this.



Explain yourself ... why is the tufu-puking eco-freaktoid libtard media saying it's poisonous in the East River? ... the cancer tumors in fish themselves have cancer tumors ... 
The TL;DR version is fine ... I already know I listen to NPR way too much ...



martybegan said:


> The issue is FORCING Me to get bags when i was just fine with the gratis ones provided by the store.



I feel your pain ... it's like checking tire inflation when your engine is making loud noises ... it depends on landfill space, if you've plenty then one-use grocery bags are the least of your worries ... our problem here is litter, these bags don't always make it to the landfill ... recycling plastic is a huge and expensive problem, this kind of "feel good solution" probably just makes thing worse in the long run ...


----------



## martybegan (Feb 11, 2020)

ReinyDays said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > it was $30 for 6 bags with a capacity of 40lbs each. If I am going to be forced to buy one, it's going to one I can use to make 1 trip only between the car and my house.
> ...



can you link said story?

Whatever, its still nanny state bullshit.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2020)

RealDave said:


> Look, Mr. Pretend Climatolgist, Should I believe real climatologists & NASA or a denier like you?



You shouldn't believe me...but you should believe what is being said in peer reviewed literature published in respected scientific journals, even when it doesn't conform to what you believe.



RealDave said:


> And really the Skeptic crowd has no overwhelming evidence of anything.



I suppose more lies from a liar shouldn't be a surprise....after all, liars gotta lie.

And of course we have provided overwhelming evidence that your OP claim was false.  I have provided more than 30 peer reviewed scientific papers published in respected scientific journals compared to zero, zip, nada, nothing, none from you so of course the evidence I have provided has overwhelmed anything you had to say.. 

The fact that you deny all science that doesn't agree with you doesn't make the science false, it only proves beyond any doubt that you are a cherry picking science denier...the very last person whose opinion on anything should be taken as credible.



RealDave said:


> Any moron can see the rapid rise in global temperatures.  They see the rapid rise in CO2 levels.



That is a bald faced lie.  You have been tricked into believing a bit of statistical sleight of hand.  If you look at individual regions in the world, very few are showing any sort of warming trend and none of them are great enough that you would be able to recognize them over the span of years.

I am well past 60, and in my lifetime, the average global temperature, whatever that useless number is worth has risen less than half a degree.  You can't even differentiate a half a degree of temperature change in your local climate between morning and mid morning and you are claiming that you can differentiate a half a degree of change over the span of years.  You are a liar and quite stupid to have been tricked into believing such nonsense.

What part of the world do you live in...lets take a look at the regional weather for half a century or so and see just how impossible your claim is.

And I provided no less than 8 peer reviewed, papers published in respected scientific journals that said that the human contribution to the total CO2 concentration is vanishingly small.  Thus far, you have provided nothing more than your own uneducated opinion that we are responsible.  Nor will you find any peer reviewed science saying that we are the drivers of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  That nonsense is boilerplate for the consumption of dupes..not actual science.



RealDave said:


> Even being dumbasses you know that more CO2 in the atmosphere =>  heightened greenhouse effect  => warmer temps.



So you say...but to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the supposed warming caused by our CO2 emissions has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our CO2 emissions...nor is there a single piece of observed, measured evidence which established a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.  There is no empirical evidence to support that claim....anywhere.  It is a belief, not a fact, not even a theory.  At present it remains a pretty poor hypothesis.



RealDave said:


> What is made up about that Mr Scientist



It is lies....demonstrable lies.  The fact that you can't see it doesn't change the fact.

Again, what part of the world do you live in...lets take a look at the most ridiculous of your claims.  Lets look at your regional climate for half a century or so and see exactly what sort of change you have experienced and see if you still want to claim that you can feel the change in the climate.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2020)

RealDave said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Golfing Gator said:
> ...



Still waiting for some evidence that our emissions are driving the global climate.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2020)

RealDave said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



That is the most twisted, irrational bit of illogic I have seen in a while.  Does your mind really accept that sort of nonsense?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2020)

Another wise answer dave...let your defeat lie and if you don't have anything intelligent to say simply keep quiet.


----------

