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.
Pretty soon many of the Southern coastal Palm Trees will be Mangrove, then Waves.
`
Lol....but the only material question is, "Who is caring?"
Only the climate obsessed read such stories. Most people don't tend to the hysterical with something like this.
The climate obsessed never quite understand this dynamic. The public feels very apathetic about needing to do dick with climate change....not debatable.
For most, this is the attitude.....
View attachment 599316
--so this means that we're still in the world of conjecture w/o quantities, and there's still no substantiation for the AGW premise. Yet, so far.While CO2 may be abundant other needed nutrients might not be, so this new growth might be limited by what are called "limiting" nutrients. If this is the case CO2 will remain in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas.
14 000 yearspretty soon? what is "pretty soon" ???
When SkookerAssbil LOSES/Feels it all slipping away, he resorts to "who cares."
Of course, HE spends ALL His time posting climate denial. Fallaciously/Stupidly ALWAYS using Only LOCAL short term WEATHER to 'prove' it. Oooph!
HE Cares obviously.
He doesn't realize he's posting LOW IQ, Not Low temperature.
`
I think we are affecting the climate, perhaps drastically. The argument, imo, is over what to do about it, or what can be done about it. We are not very good at problem solving as we generally see problems more as business, or political, opportunities rather than threats to our health or way of life.--so this means that we're still in the world of conjecture w/o quantities, and there's still no substantiation for the AGW premise. Yet, so far.
OK, so I guess I'm as much wary of "threats to our health or way of life" as the next guy, so let's decide two things: one is just how much of a threat this is so we don't under or over-react, and the other is what action can we take that has a reasonable expectation of fixing whatever's wrong.I think we are affecting the climate, perhaps drastically. The argument, imo, is over what to do about it, or what can be done about it. We are not very good at problem solving as we generally see problems more as business, or political, opportunities rather than threats to our health or way of life.
I think we are affecting the climate, perhaps drastically. The argument, imo, is over what to do about it, or what can be done about it. We are not very good at problem solving as we generally see problems more as business, or political, opportunities rather than threats to our health or way of life.
10F warmer would melt the poles/Greenland/all glaciers. (even 3F+ would)Global Warming: BFD
Higher CO2, 10F warmer, gigantic plants and animals
Does AGW Cult know anything at all? Anything?
I actually don't believe we can.OK, so I guess I'm as much wary of "threats to our health or way of life" as the next guy, so let's decide two things: one is just how much of a threat this is so we don't under or over-react, and the other is what action can we take that has a reasonable expectation of fixing whatever's wrong.
How would u address these two quandaries?
The most reliable indicator is ocean temperature, which is steadily rising. People mistake local weather conditions for global climate conditions, thus: "It's cold outside today therefore global warming is a hoax."Until you can provide measurable data to support your claim, NOTHING should be done because anything we do will undoubtedly make things worse.
Now, if the climatologists had real data, and not just computer generated fiction you might have a point.
The problem is, they don't.
www.epa.gov
OK, but u understand that this would mean that neither can we say that we're facing "threats to our health or way of life".I actually don't believe we can.
The most reliable indicator is ocean temperature, which is steadily rising. People mistake local weather conditions for global climate conditions, thus: "It's cold outside today therefore global warming is a hoax."
Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | US EPA
This indicator describes global trends in sea surface temperature.
You have links for your claims vs theirs of course! (and who is cherry picking) Also, oceran temps are lagging somewhat as it taes a while for the Greenhouse Gas warming/levels to raise the tempNo, it isn’t. It has remained functionally static for decades. Your problem is you look at reports that stop in the 1970's.
The oceans were much cooler, except for the 1930's when they were much warmer than now.
Perspective is lost when the cherry pick their source material.
And they are experts at cherry picking.
You have links for your claims vs theirs of course! (and who is cherry picking) Also, oceran temps are lagging somewhat as it taes a while for the Greenhouse Gas warming/levels to raise the temp
NOT!
Also, ocean temps are lagging somewhat as it takes a while for the GHG warming/levels to raise the water temp.
Even if CO2 stays at 410 PPM , or even close, the oceans will continue to warm.
They're on low bake indefinitely.
`
By who?They have been posted here many times.
