Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
View attachment 477067The proper rate would have been ZERO.
How many 150 year periods over the last 150,000 years have had zero warming?
View attachment 477068
I suspect I could find hundreds of 1.5C periods with change of less than 1C.
You have not identified any flaws in my logic. What you have shown us is your flawed understanding of greenhouse warming. The Earth's atmosphere is not "saturated" with greenhouse gases. You are attempting to argue that all the IR radiated at the surface gets absorbed by the atmosphere before leaving the planet and therefore adding more CO2 cannot increase the amount absorbed. Right? Wrong. The IR from the surface is absorbed and then reradiated. It gets absorbed again a little higher in the atmosphere and then reradiated. This goes on and on until the energy finally escapes to space. Adding more CO2 shortens the distance radiated IR travels before being reabsorbed, slowing the rate at which it transits the atmosphere. Thus the energy content of the atmosphere increases and its temperature, rises.
Very, very little of the costs of global warming have been spent. By the end of this century, some 200 million people will have to be relocated. And keep in mind, this means that we will LOSE their homes and work sites and retail support civic infrastructure and everything else and THAT IT WILL HAVE TO ALL BE BUILT ANEW, SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Post the relevant information that proves your claims?AR5 and the upcoming AR6so in other words, you don't have any evidence from actual scientists.Then why you quoting economists?
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
ten yrs my ass,,
you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,
That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?
You could consider the possibility that I wasn't addressing people with your mindset, jc, and thus, wasn't addressing you at all.
View attachment 477067The proper rate would have been ZERO.
How many 150 year periods over the last 150,000 years have had zero warming?
View attachment 477068
I suspect I could find hundreds of 1.5C periods with change of less than 1C.
Based on what evidence?As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole
99% of economists are complete morons.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
Based on what evidence?As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole
Step back from the kool-aid. Nothing you are spouting is supported with facts. We are in the middle of an ice age for crying out loud. The same conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet still exist today.Why in the world would anyone (other than abu afak and Fort Fun Indiana ) want to lower atmospheric CO2 in the middle of an ice age?We need to spend $78 Trillion to lower Atmospheric CO2 which will have no discernable effect on anything other than crushing the US economy. Brilliant!
We need to end the use of fossil fuels to avoid having to relocate 200 hundred million coastal inhabitants worldwide, lose the infrastructure of the cities they've all been living in and do so in the midst of weather catastrophes, global famines and water shortages. We need to address global warming to SAVE the trillions of dollars it will cost to deal with the consequences.
Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.
Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
Time has proved scientists don’t do climate wellOh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
100 % of the 75% are full of shit
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
When you consider the studies origin, NYU Law School, and the fact that AOC is actually an economics grad, the degree of reliability isn't so good. Educated people nowadays are more conditioned than educated. And a law school will always favor a policy that will expand their occupations wealth regardless if it threatens to destroy our country.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
You have not identified any flaws in my logic. What you have shown us is your flawed understanding of greenhouse warming. The Earth's atmosphere is not "saturated" with greenhouse gases. You are attempting to argue that all the IR radiated at the surface gets absorbed by the atmosphere before leaving the planet and therefore adding more CO2 cannot increase the amount absorbed. Right? Wrong. The IR from the surface is absorbed and then reradiated. It gets absorbed again a little higher in the atmosphere and then reradiated. This goes on and on until the energy finally escapes to space. Adding more CO2 shortens the distance radiated IR travels before being reabsorbed, slowing the rate at which it transits the atmosphere. Thus the energy content of the atmosphere increases and its temperature, rises.
As temperature increases, more carbon dioxide molecules will absorb and simply retain the energy, not re-emitting ... in order to remain in equilibrium with it's environment by the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... thus as temperature goes up, carbon dioxide absorbs less energy in the IR bands we're discussing right now ... 15 µm specifically ... once the 15 µm photon smacks our molecule, the molecule jumps to it's higher quantum state, the molecule can't absorb anymore 15 µm photons until after it has shed that energy ... so as more and more carbon dioxide exists in this higher state, the 15 µm energy passes right on through ...
Carbon dioxide's effect on temperature is reduced as temperatures increases ... or so the IPCC report says (WG1 Fig 12-5 and associated text) ...
Very, very little of the costs of global warming have been spent. By the end of this century, some 200 million people will have to be relocated. And keep in mind, this means that we will LOSE their homes and work sites and retail support civic infrastructure and everything else and THAT IT WILL HAVE TO ALL BE BUILT ANEW, SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Hold on a second ... there's a very good chance there will be 8 billion more people in this world by end-of-century ... there's going to be one hell of a lot more people who need to be relocated than a measly 200 million ... besides, sea level is only expected to rise 22 inches by year 2100, something easier to mitigate than building a road ... we built 44,000 miles of Interstate freeways in 30 years, we can build 10,000 miles of three foot sea walls just as quickly, and much more cheaply ...
Someday we will run out of inexpensive fossil fuels ... and have to start paying for expensive fossil fuels ... that cost will be far and away more expensive than the costs of GW ... frankly, a 2ºC temperature increase will be the least of our worries 100 years from now ...
Have you seen the price of base metals lately? ...
When you consider the studies origin, NYU Law School, and the fact that AOC is actually an economics grad, the degree of reliability isn't so good. Educated people nowadays are more conditioned than educated. And a law school will always favor a policy that will expand their occupations wealth regardless if it threatens to destroy our country.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
It’s too late we’re doomed but not from global warming, but a coming ice age. Get informed.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.
Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.www.ncdc.noaa.gov
