All the more impressive.He does but not just scientists, but climatology scientists.
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.
All the more impressive.He does but not just scientists, but climatology scientists.
Actually Obama has a mansion on Maui on the North western shore area. A hell of a place to buy for a man persuaded climate is in the process of killing us all. The other you bring up is hardly above sea level too.Obama doesn't have anything in Hawaii does he? He has Martha's Vineyard at an elevation of about 3 feet!
Not the ones who have studied paleoclimates. But you can literally read it from the oxygen isotope curve of the past 50 million years. Landmass distribution and resulting ocean currents, thermal isolation of the polar regions from warm marine currents hasn't change much over the past 50 million years. The temperature at which extensive glaciation occurs at each pole is well established. So is the resulting sea levels for each stage of glaciation.I'm impressed, you seem to know more about ice ages than scientists.
No, I'm here discussing actual empirical climate data. It sounds like you are the one who needs soothing because you don't know anything about the empirical climate data.And that's why they are here soothing each other, instead of publishing science.
No more work to be done, I guess!
![]()
Not really. I like puzzles.All the more impressive.
You called a woman physicist a nutbar. I am really perplexed why you talk that way against a woman physicist.Sure, we'll all believe your silly youtube video from some nutbar instead of the scientists.
Seems logical, right?
View attachment 896381
Obama doesn't have anything in Hawaii does he? He has Martha's Vineyard at an elevation of about 3 feet!
A climate denier. I don;t care what sex she is or what her profession is.You called a woman physicist a nutbar. I am really perplexed why you talk that way against a woman physicist.
So facts do not matter to you. Just so long as she blames you for a warmer climate.A climate denier. I don;t care what sex she is or what her profession is.
So what is it that makes it so obvious to you that trace amounts of a relatively weak GHG will cause catastrophic warming such that anyone who doesn't accept your belief is categorically labeled by you as a denier?A climate denier. I don;t care what sex she is or what her profession is.
Just stop, kid.So facts do not matter to you. Just so long as she blames you for a warmer climate.
She agrees climate changes and knows a lot about why it changes. This is your weakness in that you as a layman only see it as politics. Don't worry so much. You will not perish due to terrible climate.A climate denier. I don;t care what sex she is or what her profession is.
The conspiracy theory you speak of is man causes climate. But he does not. Even though he tries very hard, so far he can't.Just stop, kid.
If she had facts she wouldn't be posting wacky conspiracy videos on youtube.
The conspiracy theory you speak of is man causes climate. But he does not. Even though he tries very hard, so far he can't.
The Atlantic is only about 50 million years old, seems like that should have had an effect on marine currents.Not the ones who have studied paleoclimates. But you can literally read it from the oxygen isotope curve of the past 50 million years. Landmass distribution and resulting ocean currents, thermal isolation of the polar regions from warm marine currents hasn't change much over the past 50 million years. The temperature at which extensive glaciation occurs at each pole is well established. So is the resulting sea levels for each stage of glaciation.
Do you really believe there is a secret, global conspiracy within the scientific community to push global warming? Seems hard to believe, much easier to believe is that the professionals have looked at the GHG effect of CO2 and come to a different consensus than you have.The two big problems I have with the AGW crowd is they don't discuss the climate in this context and they aren't transparent about the GHG effect of CO2 and the feedback from the GHG effect of CO2.
The Atlantic is only about 50 million years old, seems like that should have had an effect on marine currents.
How did you get that from this?Do you really believe there is a secret, global conspiracy within the scientific community to push global warming? Seems hard to believe, much easier to believe is that the professionals have looked at the GHG effect of CO2 and come to a different consensus than you have.
Not sure what you point is? Don't forget, Central America was only formed about 3 million years ago. Before that the Atlantic and Pacific were connected.
So why won't they discuss it and why are they not transparent?How did you get that from this?
The two big problems I have with the AGW crowd is they don't discuss the climate in this context and they aren't transparent about the GHG effect of CO2 and the feedback from the GHG effect of CO2.
The point is the land mass distribution and locations aren’t much different today than they were 50 million years ago.Not sure what you point is? Don't forget, Central America was only formed about 3 million years ago. Before that the Atlantic and Pacific were connected.