seven stats on climate change

[Markle]

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.

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]

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.

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]

[smile] ... ok boomer ...

 

[RealDave]

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.

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

Climategate was stupid people reacting to e-mails from smart people.

 

[RealDave]

oo

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.

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?

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]

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.

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

Climategate was stupid people reacting to e-mails from smart people.

Please refer to post #279 in this thread. Thank you.

 

[SSDD]

oo

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.

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?

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.

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]

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? ...

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]

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? ...

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?

Again, please refer to post #279 in this thread. You're QUITE welcome.

 

[RealDave]

oo

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.

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?

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.

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.

Did the Medieval Warm Period welcome Vikings to Greenland?

 

[RealDave]

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.

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

Climategate was stupid people reacting to e-mails from smart people.

Please refer to post #279 in this thread. Thank you.

It is still stupid. Were you expecting it to become more true with time?

 

[bluzman61]

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.

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

Climategate was stupid people reacting to e-mails from smart people.

Please refer to post #279 in this thread. Thank you.

It is still stupid. Were you expecting it to become more true with time?

Still AGAIN, please refer to post #279 in this thread. Thank you VERY much.

 

[SSDD]

oo

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.

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?

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.

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.

Did the Medieval Warm Period welcome Vikings to Greenland?

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]

oo

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.

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?

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.

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.

Did the Medieval Warm Period welcome Vikings to Greenland?

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]

oo

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.

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?

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.

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.

Did the Medieval Warm Period welcome Vikings to Greenland?

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.

Sorry, but you really need to quit believing the deniers.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

"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]

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.

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?

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]

oo

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.

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?

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.

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.

Did the Medieval Warm Period welcome Vikings to Greenland?