Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There were no coastal cities 128 million years ago, moron. Yet, somehow life managed to survive and even thrive. If you look at the history of the earth, a warmer climate has always been beneficial for life.
Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.
There is no evidence that the rate of change now is any different than it was in the past.Again, the problem isn't the absolute temperature. It is the RATE OF CHANGE. Try to get that through your thick head, eh
There were no coastal cities 128 million years ago, moron. Yet, somehow life managed to survive and even thrive. If you look at the history of the earth, a warmer climate has always been beneficial for life.
Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.
From an adjoining thread
What were the temperature change rates? I haven't the slightest doubt that the rate was slow enough to to allow accurate determination even with the crude resolution. Let's have a look
For it's height and youth, let's take the peak at 125,000 years. It rises approximately 12C in a period of 12-13,000 years. That comes to roughly 0.1C/century. The resolution of these data is more than fine enough to accurately measure that slope. The rate of warming from 1915 to 2015 is 1.08C/century. More than ten times as fast.
For those who still fail to understand the very basics of the global warming problem: the threat is not the absolute temperatures we will ever reach. It is the RATE OF CHANGE.
There were no coastal cities 128 million years ago, moron. Yet, somehow life managed to survive and even thrive. If you look at the history of the earth, a warmer climate has always been beneficial for life.
Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.
They were smart enough to move inland away from rising waters..
From an adjoining thread
What were the temperature change rates? I haven't the slightest doubt that the rate was slow enough to to allow accurate determination even with the crude resolution. Let's have a look
For it's height and youth, let's take the peak at 125,000 years. It rises approximately 12C in a period of 12-13,000 years. That comes to roughly 0.1C/century. The resolution of these data is more than fine enough to accurately measure that slope. The rate of warming from 1915 to 2015 is 1.08C/century. More than ten times as fast.
For those who still fail to understand the very basics of the global warming problem: the threat is not the absolute temperatures we will ever reach. It is the RATE OF CHANGE.
The value per century was the slope calculated across 13,000 years. Try again.
Our temperature and our CO2 levels have had peaks and valleys that weren't detailed in the slope I gave. All these data are fractal. There is an equivalent amount of detail at all scales. The long term trend in what was obviously a significant rise was a tiny fraction of what we are currently experiencing. You are all being fooled by data plotted at radically differing scales. The rate of change for both CO2 and temperature has not likely been seen since the KT impact.
And, as I have told you all on numerous occasions, these mean nothing. Even if you found a spike exactly like what we are experiencing today, it does nothing to refute the many points of evidence that show CO2 is responsible for this warming and that humans are responsible for this CO2.
Well, Silly Billy, instead of flapping your gums, why don't you present evidence from a credible source that states otherwise?And what would you have us spend money on for energy? Coal? Way too dirty and expensive. Nuclear, far, far too expensive, and there is still the waste problem. Gas, a good bridge to renewables, but now more expensive than either solar or wind.
And like Gavin said, the climate of our planet doesn't care about our political idiocy. Not one damn bit.
the climate of our planet doesn't care about our political idiocy.
Or about the trillions you'd like to waste, damaging our economy, lowering our standards of living, building fucking windmills.
Morons.
Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1.
by
Tom Randall
April 6, 2016, 2:00 AM PDT
Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.
While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.
One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
"We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."
Here's what's shaping power markets, in six charts from BNEF:
Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1
How many time you gonna post this lie?
Why no, no evidence at all, other than basic physics involving absorption spectra. God, you are one stupid little twit.Our temperature and our CO2 levels have had peaks and valleys that weren't detailed in the slope I gave. All these data are fractal. There is an equivalent amount of detail at all scales. The long term trend in what was obviously a significant rise was a tiny fraction of what we are currently experiencing. You are all being fooled by data plotted at radically differing scales. The rate of change for both CO2 and temperature has not likely been seen since the KT impact.
And, as I have told you all on numerous occasions, these mean nothing. Even if you found a spike exactly like what we are experiencing today, it does nothing to refute the many points of evidence that show CO2 is responsible for this warming and that humans are responsible for this CO2.
Temperature increase caused the increase in CO2, not the other way around. There is no evidence that shows CO2 is responsible for the warming. None.
And you actually think that qualifies as an intelligent reply. Lordy, lordy.There were no coastal cities 128 million years ago, moron. Yet, somehow life managed to survive and even thrive. If you look at the history of the earth, a warmer climate has always been beneficial for life.
Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.
They were smart enough to move inland away from rising waters..
Yeah the Flintstones were a very smart dynasty, to bad they died out using to much fossil fuel.
.
Do you believe that CO2 prevented an ice age from happening?And you actually think that qualifies as an intelligent reply. Lordy, lordy.There were no coastal cities 128 million years ago, moron. Yet, somehow life managed to survive and even thrive. If you look at the history of the earth, a warmer climate has always been beneficial for life.December 11, 128,897,854 B.C.
2056.78 ppm
Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.
They were smart enough to move inland away from rising waters..
Yeah the Flintstones were a very smart dynasty, to bad they died out using to much fossil fuel.
.
Here ya go, douche bag:Why no, no evidence at all, other than basic physics involving absorption spectra. God, you are one stupid little twit.Our temperature and our CO2 levels have had peaks and valleys that weren't detailed in the slope I gave. All these data are fractal. There is an equivalent amount of detail at all scales. The long term trend in what was obviously a significant rise was a tiny fraction of what we are currently experiencing. You are all being fooled by data plotted at radically differing scales. The rate of change for both CO2 and temperature has not likely been seen since the KT impact.
And, as I have told you all on numerous occasions, these mean nothing. Even if you found a spike exactly like what we are experiencing today, it does nothing to refute the many points of evidence that show CO2 is responsible for this warming and that humans are responsible for this CO2.
Temperature increase caused the increase in CO2, not the other way around. There is no evidence that shows CO2 is responsible for the warming. None.
Now how could that happen if the ice age is thousands of years in the future by the Milankovic Cycles? You truly don't read very well, do you, Dingleberry. No, what the GHGs did was to start a very rapid rise in temperature, one that will continue for quite a while. We are committed, in the coming decades and centuries to several meters of sea level rise, and a worldwide rise in temperatures that will give us a climate that the naked ape has never experianced before.Do you believe that CO2 prevented an ice age from happening?And you actually think that qualifies as an intelligent reply. Lordy, lordy.There were no coastal cities 128 million years ago, moron. Yet, somehow life managed to survive and even thrive. If you look at the history of the earth, a warmer climate has always been beneficial for life.Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.
They were smart enough to move inland away from rising waters..
Yeah the Flintstones were a very smart dynasty, to bad they died out using to much fossil fuel.
.
153Here ya go, douche bag:Why no, no evidence at all, other than basic physics involving absorption spectra. God, you are one stupid little twit.Our temperature and our CO2 levels have had peaks and valleys that weren't detailed in the slope I gave. All these data are fractal. There is an equivalent amount of detail at all scales. The long term trend in what was obviously a significant rise was a tiny fraction of what we are currently experiencing. You are all being fooled by data plotted at radically differing scales. The rate of change for both CO2 and temperature has not likely been seen since the KT impact.
And, as I have told you all on numerous occasions, these mean nothing. Even if you found a spike exactly like what we are experiencing today, it does nothing to refute the many points of evidence that show CO2 is responsible for this warming and that humans are responsible for this CO2.
Temperature increase caused the increase in CO2, not the other way around. There is no evidence that shows CO2 is responsible for the warming. None.
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist
New research in Antarctica shows CO2 follows temperature “by a few hundred years at most”
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels, not man-made CO2
