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.
Consensus is the RESULT of Decades of use OF the scientific method by Thousands of scientists over decades.Nope. Look up “scientific method.”
You may return to the discussion when you finish writing a complete essay on how “consensus” has fuck all to do with that.
Until then, apu dumfuk, you remain an imbecile.
The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen well above the 180-280 ppm range typical of recent glacial-interglacial cycles. The current level, getting on for 420 ppm, is more typical of the mid-Pliocene. That was a geological epoch that happened around a million years before the start of the Quaternary. Mid-Pliocene ice-sheets were much smaller than those of the present day. Rather than being due another glaciation, we can expect a continued transition towards mid-Pliocene conditions.Yes. Did. Go re read.
Zzz
I enjoy your quibbles.
But the hard fact remains. Consensus or not, some climate scientists maintained that an ice age was coming.
Man didn’t agree. That’s fine. Science still isn’t governed by “consensus.” And yes, even scientists can be wrong.
Come on. Get it off your chest.
It was those fuckin’ pilocene SUVs that did it.
Putting your ignorance and dishonesty in a larger front and in bold doesn’t serve to support you bleating nonsense one little bit.Consensus is the RESULT of Decades of use OF the scientific method by Thousands of scientists over decades.
You Idiot!
Back under the Linton Bridge migrant worker boy.
(after your idiot last word)
`
The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen well above the 180-280 ppm range typical of recent glacial-interglacial cycles. The current level, getting on for 420 ppm, is more typical of the mid-Pliocene. That was a geological epoch that happened around a million years before the start of the Quaternary. Mid-Pliocene ice-sheets were much smaller than those of the present day. Rather than being due another glaciation, we can expect a continued transition towards mid-Pliocene conditions.
What statement of his are you attempting to counter? I never noticed him saying that climate doesn't change. It is a common argument among deniers to claim that mainstream science (or "warmers" as you like to call them) contend that CO2 is the only thing that has ever driven climate change on this planet. The contention is demonstrably nonsense.
Your repetition is boring but your contentions remain unconvincing.
By the way, climate always changes. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe that climate changes.
Then what do you believe is causing the current warming?What ignorant fools like you mean is that some people don’t believe the A in “AGW.”
Try to be accurate in your words.
That's what science does.Work on that.
Don’t play ignorant. It really doesn’t suit you.What statement of his are you attempting to counter? I never noticed him saying that climate doesn't change. It is a common argument among deniers to claim that mainstream science (or "warmers" as you like to call them) contend that CO2 is the only thing that has ever driven climate change on this planet. The contention is demonstrably nonsense.
Then what do you believe is causing the current warming?
That's what science does.
Your repetition is boring but your contentions remain unconvincing.
By the way, climate always changes. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe that climate changes.
What ignorant fools like you mean is that some people don’t believe the A in “AGW.”
Try to be accurate in your words.
Work on that.
You’re really a plodding twit.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time;
humans are now the dominant forcing.
this is why the word anthropogenic is used, to signify that humans are influencing it.
Not possible. It had to be phantom magical CO2. Crick said so.And it also proves it’s not manmade.
(Graphics are from the Federal Government)
In 1680 there was only a stub of a glacier in the mountains. Native peoples had a robust village at the river coming from the glacier.
View attachment 880774
In 1750 a glacier a mile thick and 65 miles long filled the valley. The native peoples were forced to abandon their homes.
View attachment 880773
In 1880 the glacier was gone. Before the industrial age.
View attachment 880772
View attachment 880771
Let’s see the doomsdayers squeeze that scientific fact into your manmade global warming myth.
You know I did not. I thought you might have figured out that it's not nice to lie about people.Not possible. It had to be phantom magical CO2. Crick said so.
How else do you explain 30 plus glacial cycles in the last 3 million years unless it is due to magical CO2?You know I did not. I thought you might have figured out that it's not nice to lie about people.
If you mean CO2 in solution in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and frozen tundras, then I think the answer is yes.Question 1:
Do you recognize that an increase in atmospheric temperature can result in a release of previously “locked” CO2?
YesQuestion 2:
Can you point to any repeatable scientific experiment demonstrating that an increase in atmospheric CO2 actually yields an increase in atmospheric temperature? (Note: don’t bother with “models.”)
edu.rsc.org
MILANKOVITCH CYCLESHow else do you explain 30 plus glacial cycles in the last 3 million years unless it is due to magical CO2?
How many degrees C does that affect the planet's temperature?MILANKOVITCH YOU FUCKING IDIOT
Good. I’m glad you at least admit as much. The question wasn’t directed to you, though.If you mean CO2 in solution in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and frozen tundras, then I think the answer is yes.
Yes
Nope. That only demonstrates that CO2 does absorb some energy. But that wasn’t the question.Global warming: can you demonstrate the greenhouse effect?
On screen chemistry with Jonathan Hare
You're doing a great job, keep up the good work. Question: has anyone mentioned here yet that the ocean levels at Glacier Bay are falling?You’re really a plodding twit.
Let’s see if we can give you at least a solid clue — to begin the arduous task of getting you to think intelligently for the first time in your life.
Simple matters first.
Question 1:
Do you recognize that an increase in atmospheric temperature can result in a release of previously “locked” CO2?
Question 2:
Can you point to any repeatable scientific experiment demonstrating that an increase in atmospheric CO2 actually yields an increase in atmospheric temperature? (Note: don’t bother with “models.”)
Isostasy.You're doing a great job, keep up the good work. Question: has anyone mentioned here yet that the ocean levels at Glacier Bay are falling?
What was CO2 impact on the Glacier Bay glacier?If you mean CO2 in solution in the world's oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and frozen tundras, then I think the answer is yes.
Yes
Global warming: can you demonstrate the greenhouse effect?
On screen chemistry with Jonathan Hare
It warmed the world in which it exists.What was CO2 impact on the Glacier Bay glacier?
So CO2 caused a glacier to grow a mile per year.It warmed the world in which it exists.
