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.
well their you go you know climate change happned sometimes real fast in the past and man was not around, so whats the problem how we going to stop mother nature?
Did you miss the part where I mentioned the mass extinctions that often accompanied rapid change? Maybe that doesn't bother you, but for most people that could be a concern. The whole point of the theory is the we have something to do with it, so it isn't just about stopping Mother Nature.
Yeah, "rapid change" like meteors the size of Mount Everest striking the Earth. A .01% change in CO2 is hardly in the same ball park.
People will make profits from feeding hungry mouths. Progressives fucking hate profit. So much so, they dreamed up Goebbel's Warming in order to scare people into wealth redistribution efforts for their "utopian" society dream.
This is the inevitable result of trying to talk science to any denialist. They all suck balls at the science and logic, because they're just parroting the religious mantras of their right-wing-fringe idiot's cult. So, they always do a face plant into a cow patty. Then, they sit up, in tears, wiping the shit off their faces and babbling out some fuktard conspiracy theory.
CO2 = .039% of the atmosphere. your theory is ludicrous to put it mildly.
People will make profits from feeding hungry mouths. Progressives fucking hate profit. So much so, they dreamed up Goebbel's Warming in order to scare people into wealth redistribution efforts for their "utopian" society dream.
Once again you 're proving this is all a political exercise on the deniers' part. You love to throw around epithets, hoping we'll ignore the fact that CO2 and other gases actually do absorb IR radiation. Regardless of how many "carbon sinks" there are, they aren't infinite. The fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, should be concerning to anyone that has a vaguest handle on the science.
All the while, climate scientists are baffled as to why there is a 20 year stall in temperature increases and observation is deviating beyond the margin of error in the models.
CO2 = .039% of the atmosphere. your theory is ludicrous to put it mildly.
The fact that your 'tard mind can't comprehend the facts does not mean those facts are incorrect.
If I put a drop of concentrated black ink in water, the ink will dissolve and be about .039% of the water. And the water will all turn black, blocking all visible light.
According to your 'tard claim, that can't be possible. But it does happen, hence you are a confirmed to be a 'tard. Trace elements certainly can block wavelengths of light most effectively.
That's right. You add more heat (regardless of the source) and you get more H2O gas. More condensation too. Bigger clouds. Bigger storms.
So where does all that cold figure in? What you describe will certainly cause more rain...but not more snow...which I have had in my yard for the last three days running. It is currently 35 degrees below average right now.
Both rain and snow are products of condensation. It was a very mild winter and so far a very mild spring here in SE Texas this year.
Once again you 're proving this is all a political exercise on the deniers' part. You love to throw around epithets, hoping we'll ignore the fact that CO2 and other gases actually do absorb IR radiation. Regardless of how many "carbon sinks" there are, they aren't infinite. The fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, should be concerning to anyone that has a vaguest handle on the science.
All the while, climate scientists are baffled as to why there is a 20 year stall in temperature increases and observation is deviating beyond the margin of error in the models.
You're cherry-picking a quote from A scientist. I'd wager the vast majority aren't baffled. This is just the flip side of when the deniers incorrectly claimed that proponents ignored natural cycles. Now the deniers are ignoring them, because it's no longer convenient. They were wrong in the first place and are now compounding the error by becoming hypocrites.
People will make profits from feeding hungry mouths. Progressives fucking hate profit. So much so, they dreamed up Goebbel's Warming in order to scare people into wealth redistribution efforts for their "utopian" society dream.
This is the inevitable result of trying to talk science to any denialist. They all suck balls at the science and logic, because they're just parroting the religious mantras of their right-wing-fringe idiot's cult. So, they always do a face plant into a cow patty. Then, they sit up, in tears, wiping the shit off their faces and babbling out some fuktard conspiracy theory.
20 years of temperature stalls while emissions skyrocket.
This is the inevitable result of trying to talk science to any denialist. They all suck balls at the science and logic, because they're just parroting the religious mantras of their right-wing-fringe idiot's cult. So, they always do a face plant into a cow patty. Then, they sit up, in tears, wiping the shit off their faces and babbling out some fuktard conspiracy theory.
20 years of temperature stalls while emissions skyrocket.
You keep repeating the same misleading statements and have the nerve to say it's the AGW proponents that are using Goebbels' tactics?!?! Obviously scientific explanations and definitions mean nothing to you. You've accepted the BIG LIE as your chosen tactic.
"Cherry picking".."Taking out of context"Once again you 're proving this is all a political exercise on the deniers' part. You love to throw around epithets, hoping we'll ignore the fact that CO2 and other gases actually do absorb IR radiation. Regardless of how many "carbon sinks" there are, they aren't infinite. The fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, should be concerning to anyone that has a vaguest handle on the science.
All the while, climate scientists are baffled as to why there is a 20 year stall in temperature increases and observation is deviating beyond the margin of error in the models.
You're cherry-picking a quote from A scientist. I'd wager the vast majority aren't baffled. This is just the flip side of when the deniers incorrectly claimed that proponents ignored natural cycles. Now the deniers are ignoring them, because it's no longer convenient. They were wrong in the first place and are now compounding the error by becoming hypocrites.
How so?
Because the claim from the revisionists has been that CO2 drives temperatures. The sceptics have maintained that all the rising temps were natural variation. The Vostock ice core data shows that CO2 LAGS temperature by hundreds of years and the revisionists have twisted themselves up in knots trying to explain away that fact...and then they resorted to trying to revise that historical record.
The computer models have ALL failed to address the flat temps. On the other hand the solar cycle theories of global warming show a 100% correlation between global temperature going all the way back for 1,500 years......and no data falsification was neccessary to show that.
SCIENCE syas that AGW is a fraud. There is not one single shred of empirical data that supports it. Not one...just those fevered, failed, computer models.
Googled Vostock Ice Core:
Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Careful. You might be explaining why the Earth's climate is cyclical but also subject to anomalies.How so?
Because the claim from the revisionists has been that CO2 drives temperatures. The sceptics have maintained that all the rising temps were natural variation. The Vostock ice core data shows that CO2 LAGS temperature by hundreds of years and the revisionists have twisted themselves up in knots trying to explain away that fact...and then they resorted to trying to revise that historical record.
The computer models have ALL failed to address the flat temps. On the other hand the solar cycle theories of global warming show a 100% correlation between global temperature going all the way back for 1,500 years......and no data falsification was neccessary to show that.
SCIENCE syas that AGW is a fraud. There is not one single shred of empirical data that supports it. Not one...just those fevered, failed, computer models.
Name one Climate Scientist that claims that CO2 drives temprature on this planet and not the sun! The variances in the suns output is the main reason we see the yearly peaks and valleys on the temprature graphs. Now we are in the middle of solar cycle 24, which has had the lowest output in a century, the real question is how come the temprature haven't fallen? In previous year the graphs of tempreatures follows closely with the solar output. Not so much this cycle.
That's right. You add more heat (regardless of the source) and you get more H2O gas. More condensation too. Bigger clouds. Bigger storms.
So where does all that cold figure in? What you describe will certainly cause more rain...but not more snow...which I have had in my yard for the last three days running. It is currently 35 degrees below average right now.
Both rain and snow are products of condensation. It was a very mild winter and so far a very mild spring here in SE Texas this year.
Oh no you don't...Because global warming, climate change is the new religion of the left.Interesting how the denialists here post unsupported flap-yap, and the people worried about the effects of the climate change we are currently seeing, post real science from the scientists.
Oh please...and yet those scientists still use electicity, cars and bulid expensive homes, cutting down trees....sorry bro unless they practice what they preach, what they preach doesnt mean squat.
Btw what is the temp of the Earth supposed to be? I never get an answer from you libtards......
Sinners still sin
You can go to church and not be perfect. The same goes for Global Warming, Being a better person, parent, spouse etc
Did you miss the part where I mentioned the mass extinctions that often accompanied rapid change? Maybe that doesn't bother you, but for most people that could be a concern. The whole point of the theory is the we have something to do with it, so it isn't just about stopping Mother Nature.
Yeah, "rapid change" like meteors the size of Mount Everest striking the Earth. A .01% change in CO2 is hardly in the same ball park.
0.01%?!?! CO2 has changed 30-40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Quoting absolute values, rather than % change, just proves your ignorance of the science and willingness to parrot anything that supports your bias.
And exactly what is wrong with a longer growing season?
What is the correct height above sea level in New Orleans?
People will make profits from feeding hungry mouths. Progressives fucking hate profit. So much so, they dreamed up Goebbel's Warming in order to scare people into wealth redistribution efforts for their "utopian" society dream.
Once again you 're proving this is all a political exercise on the deniers' part. You love to throw around epithets, hoping we'll ignore the fact that CO2 and other gases actually do absorb IR radiation. Regardless of how many "carbon sinks" there are, they aren't infinite. The fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, should be concerning to anyone that has a vaguest handle on the science.
Once again you 're proving this is all a political exercise on the deniers' part. You love to throw around epithets, hoping we'll ignore the fact that CO2 and other gases actually do absorb IR radiation. Regardless of how many "carbon sinks" there are, they aren't infinite. The fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, should be concerning to anyone that has a vaguest handle on the science.
All the while, climate scientists are baffled as to why there is a 20 year stall in temperature increases and observation is deviating beyond the margin of error in the models.
You're cherry-picking a quote from A scientist. I'd wager the vast majority aren't baffled. This is just the flip side of when the deniers incorrectly claimed that proponents ignored natural cycles. Now the deniers are ignoring them, because it's no longer convenient. They were wrong in the first place and are now compounding the error by becoming hypocrites.
Here I'll agree with you....but only to a point. They know why it isn't working, they're just trying to figure out some new propaganda that you and yours will believe.
This is the inevitable result of trying to talk science to any denialist. They all suck balls at the science and logic, because they're just parroting the religious mantras of their right-wing-fringe idiot's cult. So, they always do a face plant into a cow patty. Then, they sit up, in tears, wiping the shit off their faces and babbling out some fuktard conspiracy theory.
20 years of temperature stalls while emissions skyrocket.
You keep repeating the same misleading statements and have the nerve to say it's the AGW proponents that are using Goebbels' tactics?!?! Obviously scientific explanations and definitions mean nothing to you. You've accepted the BIG LIE as your chosen tactic.
Use of the term 'denier' presupposes that man made climate change is a fact. It is not. It is a theory. A theory reported as fact by certain people paid for by other people with a particular political agenda.Did you miss the part where I mentioned the mass extinctions that often accompanied rapid change? Maybe that doesn't bother you, but for most people that could be a concern. The whole point of the theory is the we have something to do with it, so it isn't just about stopping Mother Nature.
Yeah, "rapid change" like meteors the size of Mount Everest striking the Earth. A .01% change in CO2 is hardly in the same ball park.
0.01%?!?! CO2 has changed 30-40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Quoting absolute values, rather than % change, just proves your ignorance of the science and willingness to parrot anything that supports your bias.
