Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[westwall]

I go with what NASA says. Not some student magazines and info LOL

So, you are unable to think for yourself. And you only listen to scripture as presented by your high priests...

How very religious of you.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

So, you are unable to think for yourself. And you only listen to scripture as presented by your high priests...

How very religious of you.

do you know how bizarre your words are?

 

[westwall]

do you know how bizarre your words are?

Less bizarre than a person who bows down to the volcano gods.

Like you.

Remember to sacrifice a virgin to appease them.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Less bizarre than a person who bows down to the volcano gods.

Like you.

Remember to sacrifice a virgin to appease them.

Like you (but for different reasons), I occasionally get attacked by the left, the right, and self-proclaimed middle

 

[alang1216]

You mean besides not actually educating yourself on the subject like I did. There's really no excuse for that. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 and/or orbital forcing. So how do you know the recent warming trend is due to CO2 and not not the same exact causes that caused every other warming trend prior to the industrial revolution? Because our planet is uniquely configured to produce climate variations because of its landmass and ocean configuration with each pole being at a different temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation and each pole having a different amount of land that glaciation can spread. The planet's climate is driven by the northern hemisphere because of those two things.

I noticed you offered no actions, just excuses for doing nothing.

 

[Theowl32]

Hey, hey, remember that "hole in the ozone" that was causing THE GLOBAL WARMING? Yeah, that was a 90s thing and yeah pretty much still believed by....them.

You know they claimed they "FIXED IT?" The "Montreal protocol" fixed it. LOL

 

[alang1216]

Not at all. I'm saying you saying you see signs of global warming is really you see signs of an interglacial cycle. If you had done any studying at all into this subject you would have discovered that our present interglacial period is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods. So another 2C of warming is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle. Until this planet exceeds the temperatures of previous interglacial periods there is nothing to worry about.

If you're saying climate change is normal, I agree. If you say is it OK, I disagree. Extinction is normal too.

 

[alang1216]

Pick one because I don't want to confuse you. I'll give you a crash course. There is a logical sequence of which one should be explained first though. Let's see if you can figure it out. What will it be?

Pass. Through all the condescension I sense you're going to give me your historical climate model. You may well be right but I doubt it would be much comfort to a Bangladeshi farmer facing the flooding of his fields. It seems settled that the ice is melting and sea levels are rising.

 

[alang1216]

The consensus is that most of sea level rise is due to thermal expansion ... and you can calculate that yourself ... mountain glaciers don't contain all that much water ... compared to all the oceans put together ... and it is known that it's ice sheet melting that contributes to overall rise ... and this is less than 2 feet by year 2100 ... {Cite} ... so, a child born today would be 77 years-old, so great-great-grandchildren ... and two lousy feet is nothing ... be real my friend, your great-great-grandchildren will not remember your name ...

Glaciers are a nuisance ... glad to see them gone ... especially since we'll all get two weeks longer growing season ... which is humane? ...

You may be right about this but I don't think a 2 foot rise is 'nothing'. I think it will be catastrophic for Florida, Louisiana, Bangladesh, Pacific Islands, etc., and the effects will be felt everywhere.

 

[alang1216]

Sea level has probably not risen to any great degree in 100 years. Photographic evidence from locations worldwide prove that.

Do they?

Fact Check-Statue of Liberty photos do not prove sea level rise is a myth​

By Reuters Fact Check

Social media users are sharing two photographs of the Statue of Liberty taken 100 years apart and wrongly saying the images prove that sea levels are not rising.
The tide causes wide fluctuations in the water level every day. It would be almost impossible to use two photographs taken at two random moments to illustrate an overall trend over time. Scientific studies that take tide data and other factors into account do show that sea levels have risen overall during that period in New York.

And:

How much is sea level rising?​

Link to this page

Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise?

Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming

The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.

Because sea level behavior is such an important signal for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you can create almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations.

 

[alang1216]

No, it provably doesn't. The amount of CO2 is so vanishingly small that whatever effect it may have had is completely overwhelmed by water vapor which is by far the primary GHG.

Or not. Although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature.

 

[alang1216]

What makes you say that?

You don't seem to believe CO2 has a climatic effect.

 

[alang1216]

Except your "science" requires faith. Ours doesn't.

I was born without faith.

 

[jc456]

You also don't object when others make predictions. Why is that?

I accept no prediction. you have me confused with someone else.

 

[jc456]

You don't seem to believe CO2 has a climatic effect.

I don't believe that. For sure I don't. Use me for who doesn't. hoax I tell you. Earth needs CO2 to exist for the environment like plants, trees and humans.

 

[alang1216]

I don't believe that. For sure I don't. Use me for who doesn't. hoax I tell you. Earth needs CO2 to exist for the environment like plants, trees and humans.

How much CO2? Can there be too much or too little?

 

[ReinyDays]

I go with what NASA says. Not some student magazines and info LOL

So you're admitting you have little or no understanding yourself ... just what an aeronautical agency of the US government says ...

My main source is an Atmospheric Science textbook, though I'm more quick to quote my physics textbook ... you know ... F=ma stuff ...

 

[ReinyDays]

You may be right about this but I don't think a 2 foot rise is 'nothing'. I think it will be catastrophic for Florida, Louisiana, Bangladesh, Pacific Islands, etc., and the effects will be felt everywhere.

Well ... two feet will not be overtopping the Everglades Parkway ... more likely to have to remove that barrier and allow the sea to swallow up the Everglades National Park ... aren't you an environmentalist ... and New Orleans is already ten feet below sea level, and fills up with water every 50 years or so ... Bangladesh has these things called "sea walls" ... and they build on berms, they get 20 foot floods routinely ...

The West Coast is already benched up 30 feet ... from when sea levels were that high at the beginning of the Holocene ...

Sorry ... you got nothing here ... a rather large percentage of Japanese 50 foot sea walls washed away in 2011 ... they've about 500 miles rebuilt ... and quickly completing the other 500 miles ... why can't the rest of the world build three foot sea walls? ... duh ...

 

[westwall]

Or not. Although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature.

So, you are going to believe a fantasy about a GHG constituting less than 1% of the GHG's is somehow so powerful that it overwhelms the GHG that constitutes 95% of the GHG in the atmosphere.

Got it. Show the math.

 

[westwall]

You don't seem to believe CO2 has a climatic effect.

I don't. That doesn't mean I don't agree that it is a GHG.