Global warming is speeding up.

[Mikeoxenormous]

Eat snow peas, Qdog. They're good for you. The ruffage will do wonders for you climate alarmists irritable bowel condition.

Biologically speaking the reason why humans eat meat is that the proteins are what is required for a healthy body, but when we eat plant based foods, we have more flatulence instead of hard waste which the gas is put into the air, while the hard waste goes back into the soil.......So eating vegan, is worse for the environment.

"Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon," said Paul Fischbeck, one of the researchers. "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken."

Vegetarian And 'Healthy' Diets May Actually Be Worse For ...​

www.sciencealert.com/vegetarian-and-healthy-diets-may-actually-be-worse-for-t…

 

[ReinyDays]

The new IPCC report was issued last week ... it's seven times longer than the Holy Bible ... no one's read it through yet ...

... but the lies pour forth ...

First question ... please describe the peer-preview process the panel underwent? ... ha ha ha ... `none at all` you say ... very well ... that explains why the math is so so so wrong in the OP ...

 

[ding]

I saw some climate scientist saying this on the news last night. That the earth is not just getting warmer, but the rate at which it is getting warmer is accelerating. Though this isn't news to me. The only question is how bad will things get before people start doing something about it. I am reminded of a lyric by Janis Joplin. "Freedom's (survival) just another word for nothing left to lose." I wouldn't expect our corporate government to do much. I also saw on the news last night that Biden signed some mandate or something saying that by the year 2050, all cars are going to have to be electric. But the way things are looking, it is doubtful there will be any people around to drive them. And they're supposed to have all electric cars in the U.S. But what about the rest of the increasingly overpopulating and "migrating" world.

Those climate scientists will have to eat their words.

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

 

[ding]

The new IPCC report was issued last week ... it's seven times longer than the Holy Bible ... no one's read it through yet ...

... but the lies pour forth ...

First question ... please describe the peer-preview process the panel underwent? ... ha ha ha ... `none at all` you say ... very well ... that explains why the math is so so so wrong in the OP ...

Have you seen this yet?

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

 

[ReinyDays]

Have you seen this yet?

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

"The models were also out of step with records of past climate. For example, scientists used the new model from NCAR to simulate the coldest point of the most recent ice age, 20,000 years ago. Extensive paleoclimate records suggest Earth cooled nearly 6°C compared with preindustrial times, but the model, fed with low ice age CO2 levels, had temperatures plummeting by nearly twice that much, suggesting it was far too sensitive to the ups and downs of CO2. “That is clearly outside the range of what the geological data indicate,” says Jessica Tierney, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona and a co-author of the work, which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters. “It’s totally out there.”"

Yes, climate models do poorly when fed past data and asked to predict today's climate ... computers are getting better, and unit volumes are slimming down a bit ... but this will never explain any new physics ... these models can only use the physics that is known ... that which is unknown in the climate system cannot be programmed into a computer ... only humans can guess ...

 

[Colin norris]

If you have real proof it's accelerating, I'm willing to examine it.
As soon as you post it. Thanks!

Examine it all you want but don't forget to acknowledge what our authorities are saying. I know you won't but I thought I would rub it in anyway.
Why don't you research it yourself instead of immediately doubting what I said. Think before you post

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov to NOAA's 2020 Annual,more than twice that rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Examine it all you want but don't forget to acknowledge what our authorities are saying. I know you won't but I thought I would rub it in anyway.
Why don't you research it yourself instead of immediately doubting what I said. Think before you post

Climate Change: Global Temperature | NOAA Climate.gov to NOAA's 2020 Annual,more than twice that rate.

Examine it all you want but don't forget to acknowledge what our authorities are saying.

Twice the rate......based on 140 years of data?

Well, shit, that's enough evidence to justify $76 trillion in green spending. Easily.

I know you won't but I thought I would rub it in anyway.

What do you think you're rubbing?

Think before you post

You first.

 

[Colin norris]

Examine it all you want but don't forget to acknowledge what our authorities are saying.

Twice the rate......based on 140 years of data?

Well, shit, that's enough evidence to justify $76 trillion in green spending. Easily.

I know you won't but I thought I would rub it in anyway.

What do you think you're rubbing?

Think before you post

You first.

So you now accept the data? Now were getting somewhere.
You're not so smart now big mouth.

 

[ding]

"The models were also out of step with records of past climate. For example, scientists used the new model from NCAR to simulate the coldest point of the most recent ice age, 20,000 years ago. Extensive paleoclimate records suggest Earth cooled nearly 6°C compared with preindustrial times, but the model, fed with low ice age CO2 levels, had temperatures plummeting by nearly twice that much, suggesting it was far too sensitive to the ups and downs of CO2. “That is clearly outside the range of what the geological data indicate,” says Jessica Tierney, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona and a co-author of the work, which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters. “It’s totally out there.”"

Yes, climate models do poorly when fed past data and asked to predict today's climate ... computers are getting better, and unit volumes are slimming down a bit ... but this will never explain any new physics ... these models can only use the physics that is known ... that which is unknown in the climate system cannot be programmed into a computer ... only humans can guess ...

They haven't a clue about the self compensating role of water vapor and clouds so they add a positive feedback for it instead. Not sure why they can't figure that out. Oh, yeah.... because it wouldn't produce the results they desired.

 

[ding]

So you now accept the data? Now were getting somewhere.
You're not so smart now big mouth.

Why is it that you believe in man made global warming?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I dont think you know what a strawman is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you now accept the data? Now were getting somewhere.
You're not so smart now big mouth.

140 years worth? Sure, why wouldn't I accept it? It's not like they go back and adjust it, eh?

You're not so smart now big mouth.

Smarter than you. I know, low bar.....really, really low.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Al Gore said that our ocean was going to rise TWENTY FEET.

Unlike yourself, i dont take my cues on science from nonscientists. Sounds more like old Al is living in your head than in mine.

In fact, you sound like a desperate moron to talk about what Al Gore says. Talk about strawmen...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Come again ya moron?

"Ooh, scary. What else will scary, ineffectual internet crybaby do to me"

Your embarrassing whining doesnt hide the fact that you never read any of those articles. Maybe when you were a baby, throwing a little tantrum got you your way. Grow up son.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They are at the highest ever counted, you fail to realize their population went up as sea ice in summer declined reaching the lowest point in 2012, 9 years later it roughly stabilized at the low level yet Polar Bears are doing well

Which would not negate the idea that near total loss of sea ice would likely cause them to face extinction. You guys are really struggling with this basic concept.

 

[Colin norris]

140 years worth? Sure, why wouldn't I accept it? It's not like they go back and adjust it, eh?

You're not so smart now big mouth.

Smarter than you. I know, low bar.....really, really low.

You're the one who implied I had no data and you got pinged yet it's me who dumb??? . How does that work Einstein?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're the one who implied I had no data and you got pinged yet it's me who dumb??? . How does that work Einstein?

Did your post #92, or any of your later posts, answer my questions?

Because "faster than the last 140 years" doesn't justify $76 trillion, as far as I can tell.

 

[ding]

Colin doesn't know the first thing about the science but he was told to believe it so he does.

 

[myself]

ding

I looked at what you posted. From my observations over the year, to call the increase in human caused global warming "implausibly fast" is sheer stupidity. It is accelerating. I would say mostly due to methane release. Because methane is around 85% more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Surprisingly, despite the methane released from thawing tundra and melting methane hydrate ice in the oceans, around 60% of the methane release is caused by human activity. I have a graph you might find interesting.

 

[myself]

Toddsterpatriot

We just don't need nuclear power plants. Solar panels could produce far more energy than humans would ever need. Ever. The problem is that there isn't much money to be made from free. Also, those with most of the money are energy companies. That in turn own the automobile industry. And you know what those with money do. Pay to have the politicians they want put into place.