Climate Change - on Mars

[frigidweirdo]

But again, there's a difference between climate change and MAN MADE climate change.

The biggest problem is we CAN'T control the climate.

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

The problem here is that the world is about balance.

If we have too much sun,we get cancer. If we have too little sun, we get cancer.
If we get too much water, we die, if we don't get enough water, we die.
If we get too much oxygen, we die, if don't get enough oxygen, we die.

Saying that it's only 5% of what's out there is like saying that we're getting 5% too much sun, or 5% too much water, or 5% too much oxygen. That could kill us.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

The problem here is that the world is about balance.

If we have too much sun,we get cancer. If we have too little sun, we get cancer.
If we get too much water, we die, if we don't get enough water, we die.
If we get too much oxygen, we die, if don't get enough oxygen, we die.

Saying that it's only 5% of what's out there is like saying that we're getting 5% too much sun, or 5% too much water, or 5% too much oxygen. That could kill us.

You have this idyllic view of balance. It's more chaotic than that. When the "signature of GW" is below 1/2DegC, it's in the "natural variation" of temperature "noise". Same with the Carbon cycle. There are HUGE annual variations in both Natural source and sink. Far outweighing the 2% part that man contributes.

The whole concept of panicking over a 1degF change in MEAN temperature in your lifetime is ironic considering that in most places the ANNUAL VARIATION is on the order of +/-40degF all the time.

And no -- no one dies from from 5% or 2% more water or oxygen.

 

[mudwhistle]

But again, there's a difference between climate change and MAN MADE climate change.

The biggest problem is we CAN'T control the climate.

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

I'd say we are but a drop in the bucket.....but we're really just a drop in the swimming pool.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

I'd say we are but a drop in the bucket.....but we're really just a drop in the swimming pool.

The signature of carbon emissions probably DOES affect the mean temperature over decades. But nowhere NEAR the hysterical scary numbers that the ORIGINAL GW predictions presented. I have no doubts that man will contribute some fraction to the current observed warming. It's just not earth destroying runaway apocalyptic doom that has been fed to the masses to panic them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

The problem here is that the world is about balance.

If we have too much sun,we get cancer. If we have too little sun, we get cancer.
If we get too much water, we die, if we don't get enough water, we die.
If we get too much oxygen, we die, if don't get enough oxygen, we die.

Saying that it's only 5% of what's out there is like saying that we're getting 5% too much sun, or 5% too much water, or 5% too much oxygen. That could kill us.

You have this idyllic view of balance. It's more chaotic than that. When the "signature of GW" is below 1/2DegC, it's in the "natural variation" of temperature "noise". Same with the Carbon cycle. There are HUGE annual variations in both Natural source and sink. Far outweighing the 2% part that man contributes.

The whole concept of panicking over a 1degF change in MEAN temperature in your lifetime is ironic considering that in most places the ANNUAL VARIATION is on the order of +/-40degF all the time.

And no -- no one dies from from 5% or 2% more water or oxygen.

Maybe there are. But that's not the point. There are variations within the human body too. However I've said before that there's the unknown with human contribution.

For example the oceans have dealt with variation because it happens over a long period of time. Now, what we're doing is raising the PH levels of the oceans to a point that might cause major problems because it's happening too quickly. The oceans are absorbing all this CO2, and it's change the oceans quickly. What happens if something goes wrong? If too many fish die, or something else dies that puts the whole food chain in danger, or beyond, and then the oceans can't take in the CO2 and start pumping out the CO2 too?

The point I'm making is that there is a balance and beyond this balance we don't know what will happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

COrrect, I will not be litigating the truth of scientific theories with know-nothing hacks on message boards. If you wanted to debate the science, you would be publishing science and speaking at universities and scientific society conventions. You would get laughed out of any of those venues in a matter of minutes. Unless, of course, you decided to really "show your ass" and call them all "liars"... then you would be insulted out of those venues.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

I'd say we are but a drop in the bucket.....but we're really just a drop in the swimming pool.

Well, you get 200 kids peeing in the swimming pool, which is what it really is, and you suddenly notice the color change.

Again, you don't know the effect it will have.

 

[flacaltenn]

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

COrrect, I will not be litigating the truth of scientific theories with know-nothing hacks on message boards. If you wanted to debate the science, you would be publishing science and speaking at universities and scientitifc socirty conventions. You would get laughed out of any of those venues in a matter of minutes.

I do publish science and have been an invited speaker at many universities. You're just one of those loud mouthed couch warriors --- right? When can I expect you to actually SUIT UP and participate in any discussions? Or did they teach you at University just to protest ideas and concepts that don't match your political handlers?

 

[flacaltenn]

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

I'd say we are but a drop in the bucket.....but we're really just a drop in the swimming pool.

Well, you get 200 kids peeing in the swimming pool, which is what it really is, and you suddenly notice the color change.

Again, you don't know the effect it will have.

Yeah -- I do know the effect. I was a lifeguard.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

COrrect, I will not be litigating the truth of scientific theories with know-nothing hacks on message boards. If you wanted to debate the science, you would be publishing science and speaking at universities and scientitifc socirty conventions. You would get laughed out of any of those venues in a matter of minutes.

I do publish science and have been an invited speaker at many universities. You're just one of those loud mouthed couch warriors --- right? When can I expect you to actually SUIT UP and participate in any discussions? Or did they teach you at University just to protest ideas and concepts that don't match your political handlers?

"I do publish science and have been an invited speaker at many universities. "

i call BS. yo have published no climate science, nor have you been invited to speak about it at universities. give me a break. You say the most ridiculous things... parrot the most tired and debunked denier talking points.... tell me another...

 

[flacaltenn]

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

COrrect, I will not be litigating the truth of scientific theories with know-nothing hacks on message boards. If you wanted to debate the science, you would be publishing science and speaking at universities and scientitifc socirty conventions. You would get laughed out of any of those venues in a matter of minutes.

I do publish science and have been an invited speaker at many universities. You're just one of those loud mouthed couch warriors --- right? When can I expect you to actually SUIT UP and participate in any discussions? Or did they teach you at University just to protest ideas and concepts that don't match your political handlers?

"I do publish science and have been an invited speaker at many universities. "

i call BS. yo have published no climate science, nor have you been invited to speak about it at universities. give me a break. You say the most ridiculous things... parrot the most tired and debunked denier talking points.... tell me another...

Kinda of one trick rodent aren't you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

I'd say we are but a drop in the bucket.....but we're really just a drop in the swimming pool.

Well, you get 200 kids peeing in the swimming pool, which is what it really is, and you suddenly notice the color change.

Again, you don't know the effect it will have.

Yeah -- I do know the effect. I was a lifeguard.

Well, when you become as knowledgeable about the effects of a mass increase of CO2 from human influence on the world, let us know. But we'll probably all be dead by then.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

COrrect, I will not be litigating the truth of scientific theories with know-nothing hacks on message boards. If you wanted to debate the science, you would be publishing science and speaking at universities and scientitifc socirty conventions. You would get laughed out of any of those venues in a matter of minutes.

I do publish science and have been an invited speaker at many universities. You're just one of those loud mouthed couch warriors --- right? When can I expect you to actually SUIT UP and participate in any discussions? Or did they teach you at University just to protest ideas and concepts that don't match your political handlers?

"I do publish science and have been an invited speaker at many universities. "

i call BS. yo have published no climate science, nor have you been invited to speak about it at universities. give me a break. You say the most ridiculous things... parrot the most tired and debunked denier talking points.... tell me another...

Kinda of one trick rodent aren't you?

Says the guy who thinks squawking on a message board presents any real challenge to the theories... no, you're just the little 90-pound weakling, hitting a bag in your garage, who truly believes he can beat Mike Tyson.... there's your "one trick pony"...

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yes, but the point I'm making is that the consequences of something natural are the consequences of life on this planet. Life has adapted to the Earth and seems to be able to survive. If it can't, then it can't, that's life.

Cold comfort to the dinosaurs that the comet was natural. Some of us have children that we'd like to see thrive regardless of the cause of global warming.

So you're saying we shouldn't stop trashing our planet and trying to cause it to be uninhabitable because there's a chance we might be hit by a comet in the next 10 billion years?

On the contrary, I'm saying that we could bring man's carbon footprint to zero and the climate will still change. We need to stop trashing the planet. We need to mitigate any climate change effects (levees, sea walls, etc.). We need to be able to control the climate so it stays approximately where it is now. Any change, even a minor one, would be catastrophic.

But again, there's a difference between climate change and MAN MADE climate change.

The biggest problem is we CAN'T control the climate.

I can make the earth cooler.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Old Rocks]

Not true. I can't find it now but I read last week where scientists put in all the information into a computer and they know how long the world will last. If we end it ourselves it could be 5000 years from now but if we went green like Avatar it could be millions of years.

Who knows if the Martians prematurely killed themselves off or if it happened naturally.

I wonder if they warred with each other rather than build a ship they could live on until earth became habitable.

--LOL

what an idiot like any of the models have had any accuracy

--LOL

like i said before

you have absolutely no proof dim wit

--LOL

Ok pal, you argue with the scientists like you rwnj's always do.

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have made their best estimate for how much longer the Earth will be habitable for human life, barring nuclear war, rogue asteroids, or being destroyed to make room for a hyperspace bypass. Fortunately, you don't need to put your affairs in order any time soon. The researchers estimate that the Earth will remain habitable for another 1.75 to 3.25 billion years.

Their research, which has been published in the journal Astrobiology, is part of the bigger project of looking for life outside of our own solar system. Over the past few years, astronomers have discovered a number of planets that exist within the habitable zones of their stars - meaning that their orbits place them not too far, but not too close, so that temperatures on the surface are just right for life to develop.

But with so many planets in potentially habitable zones, there has to be some priority in trying to determine which planets are most likely to contain life and are therefore more worth devoting additional resources to observing. That's where this research comes in.

Since life took hundreds of millions of years to evolve on Earth, the researchers reason that the best candidates for observation are those with the longest habitable zone lifetimes.


The researchers then studied 34 planets, including Earth, that are thought to exist within the habitable zones of their stars. They then used observations of their orbits and their stars' to arrive at estimates of each planets habitable zone lifetime. There is an astounding range of possibilities - ranging "from significantly less than that of Earth to over five times Earth's HZ lifetime," they wrote.

See, if it were up to you we wouldn't even do this research and we would never learn anything. Just like the Martians.

Scientists Estimate How Much Longer The Earth Can Support Life

so far all models have been proven wrong

why would this one be any different

making a model is not research

it is guess work at best

What a fucked up liar you are, jon. Prior to 2000 all your assholes were saying there was no global warming. With 1998, they had to change their lies. Then they said, yes, there is global warming, but it is all natural. But none of you could name a single natural cause for the warming. In 1981, Dr. Hansen predicted the Northwest Passage would open up by the end of the 21st Century. But it opened up in 2007, and in 2016 a 1000 passenger luxury liner transited the Passage.

fuck you shit for brains

there is no man made global warming you retard

all the models had been faked

all the data fudged

LOL What a silly person you are. I have walked some of the glaciers in the Cascades and the Rockies. I have seen, up close and personal, how fast they are melting. The scientists that have measured that regression confirm what I have observed. You yap on like a person that has had zero education on this issue. Do you understand what the absorption spectra tell us about GHG's? I doubt that you even know what an absorption spectra is.

 

[Old Rocks]

yup it is called nature

Hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and volcanoes are natural too but we go to great lengths to make them less deadly. Why would climate change be any different?

Hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and volcanoes are natural too but we go to great lengths to make them less deadly.

--LOL we do

actually we dont have any control over the weather


to think so is absurd

Now Jon, just because you are such a dumb fuck, does not mean the rest of us are. Have you any idea of what a single celled organism did to the atmosphere about 2 billion years ago? Do you understand what was the primary driver of the P-T Extinction was? That you are so fucking ignorant is absurb.

 

[Old Rocks]

So you're saying we shouldn't stop trashing our planet and trying to cause it to be uninhabitable because there's a chance we might be hit by a comet in the next 10 billion years?

On the contrary, I'm saying that we could bring man's carbon footprint to zero and the climate will still change. We need to stop trashing the planet. We need to mitigate any climate change effects (levees, sea walls, etc.). We need to be able to control the climate so it stays approximately where it is now. Any change, even a minor one, would be catastrophic.

But again, there's a difference between climate change and MAN MADE climate change.

The biggest problem is we CAN'T control the climate.

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

You are the fucking idiot. We have already had a profound effect on the climate. And that will increase, even in the near term future.