Global Warming

[abu afak]

Mauna Loa is an active volcano.

abu afak, how do you get the simple stuff 100% wrong and what does that say about everything you post. There are mistakes of course, there is also simply posting your opinion which is not based on anything but what you believe without any facts to back it up.

They certainly wouldn't be taking measurements when it's active.
They use it to avoid pollution from cities etc.

AND AGAIN, ANY WARMING DENIER WITH A 3 DIGIT IQ ACKNOWLEDGES THE RISE IN CO2.
THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE!
ASK ANY OF YOUR ALLIES HERE WITH HALF A BRAIN OR HALF AN EDUCATION.
YOU'RE ALL ALONE WITH ZERO KNOWLEDGE.

You're not even in this debate, you're a high frequency posting Clown.
`

 

[elektra]

You're not even in this debate, you're a high frequency posting Clown.
`

You said an active volcano is dead. You stated, Mauna Loa is a dead volcano. You can not be more wrong then describing the largest active volcano in the world that created Hawaii, as being, dead.

If you can not get that right, what do you know? Nothing. You can post all you want, right or wrong, and it is not relevant to anything I stated. For you are wrong about the simple. If you can not get the simple right you prove you will get everything wrong. The only way you can accomplish anything, is if people are stupid enough to believe you. Sure, you can state that the sun always shines, but that has nothing to do with Mauna Loa, does it. So even if you post truth, who cares, you are ignoring what you are responding to, or if you are not ignoring what was stated. You are too dumb to comprehend what you responded to thus you respond with an answer to a question or comment that was never stated.

 

[polarbear]

3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.

I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.

Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that?
Who disputed that? Did I ?...when I asked you to show me a spectral absorption % increase per ppm CO2 increase....of the same gas
And then to your "scientific" source:
Researchers have also studied how these climate changes – particularly increased temperatures and higher rainfall – have impacted the severity of hurricanes and other storms. While evidence does not show that these types of factors are the primary cause of damaging weather events, Washington Post reporters Emily Guskin and Brady Dennis noted that many researchers are very confident that climate change does contribute to more frequent and more intense storms.
Let me get that straight, there is no evidence which shows that but all it takes is for some WaPo reporters to say "many researchers are very confident"...to substitute for the lack of physical evidence.
In plain English all they have is the phony consensus based on statistics the ex-cartoonist from Australia constructed.
Geezus how hard can it be for anyone with a normal level of math skills to think it through how long it would take to just create 1 single extra Hurricane, never mind a record number of them with just 1 extra Watt/m^2.
And I am being overly generous here because it`s way less than 1 Watt.
The average Hurricane is 100 miles wide (156 km) and tracks for ~ 3500 km. This sucks up 600 Tera Watts for a duration of about 9 days...the average duration of a typical Atlantic hurricane.
The same area which supplies the energy for one of these can get it only back at a rate of 5.46 * 10^11 Watts if CO2 would actually give you a whole watt/m^2 and not just a fraction of that.
So for a 1 week Hurricane you would need about 1200 weeks of "extra" energy to get enough for just 1 extra Hurricane per season. Hmm....How many weeks (or months) long is the Hurricane season ?

3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.

I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.

Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that?
Who disputed that? Did I ?...when I asked you to show me a spectral absorption % increase per ppm CO2 increase....of the same gas
And then to your "scientific" source:
Researchers have also studied how these climate changes – particularly increased temperatures and higher rainfall – have impacted the severity of hurricanes and other storms. While evidence does not show that these types of factors are the primary cause of damaging weather events, Washington Post reporters Emily Guskin and Brady Dennis noted that many researchers are very confident that climate change does contribute to more frequent and more intense storms.
Let me get that straight, there is no evidence which shows that but all it takes is for some WaPo reporters to say "many researchers are very confident"...to substitute for the lack of physical evidence.
In plain English all they have is the phony consensus based on statistics the ex-cartoonist from Australia constructed.
Geezus how hard can it be for anyone with a normal level of math skills to think it through how long it would take to just create 1 single extra Hurricane, never mind a record number of them with just 1 extra Watt/m^2.
And I am being overly generous here because it`s way less than 1 Watt.
The average Hurricane is 100 miles wide (156 km) and tracks for ~ 3500 km. This sucks up 600 Tera Watts for a duration of about 9 days...the average duration of a typical Atlantic hurricane.
The same area which supplies the energy for one of these can get it only back at a rate of 5.46 * 10^11 Watts if CO2 would actually give you a whole watt/m^2 and not just a fraction of that.
So for a 1 week Hurricane you would need about 1200 weeks of "extra" energy to get enough for just 1 extra Hurricane per season. Hmm....How many weeks (or months) long is the Hurricane season ?

Again I'm not a scientist never claimed to be, yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental. Theirs a concept I AM familiar with. High impact, low probability. It's the reason chemical plants, nuclear weapons and other dangerous items or places, invest heavily in safety. A risk of something highly dangerous going wrong, means you take as many precautions as possible. In the case of global warming the risks are global, long term and very, very serious if those scientists are right. If you are right what happens? So isn't it good policy to err on the side of caution?

Theirs a concept I AM familiar with. High impact, low probability. It's the reason chemical plants, nuclear weapons and other dangerous items or places, invest heavily in safety. A risk of something highly dangerous going wrong,
If you are familiar with that concept then you should know that nuclear weapons, certain chemical processes are without even a shadow of a doubt dangerous and if intended to be a weapon designed to be exactly that: high impact !
CO2 is not even remotely close to the hazard classifications most of the chemicals we use to produce the objects you take for granted.
yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.
There are not way more scientists who support man made global warming unless you consider Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics plus all the engineering in all these fields as "non relevant". That "way more" is only true if you reduce science to tree ring readings etc. Without these highly dubious methods it is not possible to show a CO2 versus global temperature correlation.
Which is why the alarmists always piggy-back this statement in order to sell their pseudo science: global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.
Which is supposed to insure that no reasonable person can argue with the nonsense that preceded it.

CO2 is not even remotely close to the hazard classifications

For someone who uses energy outputs on the oceans to argue that hurricanes can't get more serious this is either a terrible misreading of what I claim or a deliberate one. I am not talking about the hazard classification of CO2. I'm talking about the GENERAL predicted consequences of global warming. Rising sea levels, Extreme rainfall, forest fires ,mass extinction, etc. Reducing it to the hazard classification of CO2 is dishonest.

There are not way more scientists who support man made global warming

Well the UN disagrees. And since ALL countries except the US accept the findings of that UN permit me to call bullshit on this claim. Hell even NASA has an entire website dedicated to it.NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.

Pacific Island nations are slowly being eaten away
Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity
A few examples of it happening.
-Your country sinking in the waves I consider detrimental don't you?
-Living in California has become a bit more dangerous. Detrimental don't you think?
I also noticed you failed to address my premise.
If I'm right these things I just described will just get worse. REALLY HIGH IMPACT
What will happen if you are right? And why take the risk?

For someone who uses energy outputs on the oceans to argue that hurricanes can't get more serious this is either a terrible misreading of what I claim or a deliberate one.
First of all I did not say hurricanes can not get more serious. I said how much energy just one of them requires and there are supposed to be many more of these. You and others prefer to use ambiguous rubber statements instead of calculations. Now you are asking me how much more serious they can get due to CO2.
The answer is 0.008 times more serious than without any.
For someone who uses energy outputs on the oceans to argue....
Which other energy source do you think is being tapped by hurricanes ? A dry land mass does not spawn hurricanes they can only happen if the ocean is significantly warmer that the air above it.
And since ALL countries except the US accept the findings of that UN permit me to call bullshit on this claim
Another exaggeration. It`s certain political parties and their leaders who accept these findings which are tailored to influence political leaders and the IPCC has stated that.
Hell even NASA has an entire website dedicated to it.
So what if they have a web site for it? It`s not as if these so called "NASA scientists" have anything in common with the scientists at NASA who design and build the hardware NASA launches. It was a P.R. windfall for the IPCC after NASA had to bow to politicians and allowed climate crusaders to use the NASA emblem on their publications. Hell it worked as intended for people like you. All it took was the NASA logo and that is supposed to make "NASA science" out of the entire bullshit.
Not that it matters what you believe.
Your country sinking in the waves I consider detrimental don't you?
Not even your so called "NASA" scientists have a clue what size the polar ice caps will be after the length of time that would take. Each time the data is in contradiction with the predicted trend there is radio silence.

 

[elektra]

-Do you have data to support your claim that your neighbor is doing that, and what are the consequences on the world if you don't react? In the case of global warming the consequences effect everybody. And the data supporting it is sufficiently strong to have the entire world, save 1 country to try to at least curb those consequences. Seems a false equivalency in that light.

Post temperatures that show global warming since they began record keeping. I know you do not have that it is impossible for you to find the temperatures. Go to your NOAA site and find the actual temperatures. I dare ya. Post the temperatures or you are a simple hack, a liar, or a complete idiot. Prove anything that you state. You want supporting data, fine, show us the temperatures.

 

[polarbear]

The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact
Fig. 1 shows the unprocessed spectrum of the 15 µm band for 357 ppm CO2 and 2.6% H2O.

Inserting e = 20.2 m2/mol for the n3 band into Lambert-Beer's law, using 357 ppm for the CO2 concentration and a 10 m layer, we find the extinction

E = 20.2 m2/mol * 0.0159 mol/m3 * 10 m = 3.21
We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0. IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm
It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.

 

[forkup]

I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.

Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that?
Who disputed that? Did I ?...when I asked you to show me a spectral absorption % increase per ppm CO2 increase....of the same gas
And then to your "scientific" source:
Researchers have also studied how these climate changes – particularly increased temperatures and higher rainfall – have impacted the severity of hurricanes and other storms. While evidence does not show that these types of factors are the primary cause of damaging weather events, Washington Post reporters Emily Guskin and Brady Dennis noted that many researchers are very confident that climate change does contribute to more frequent and more intense storms.
Let me get that straight, there is no evidence which shows that but all it takes is for some WaPo reporters to say "many researchers are very confident"...to substitute for the lack of physical evidence.
In plain English all they have is the phony consensus based on statistics the ex-cartoonist from Australia constructed.
Geezus how hard can it be for anyone with a normal level of math skills to think it through how long it would take to just create 1 single extra Hurricane, never mind a record number of them with just 1 extra Watt/m^2.
And I am being overly generous here because it`s way less than 1 Watt.
The average Hurricane is 100 miles wide (156 km) and tracks for ~ 3500 km. This sucks up 600 Tera Watts for a duration of about 9 days...the average duration of a typical Atlantic hurricane.
The same area which supplies the energy for one of these can get it only back at a rate of 5.46 * 10^11 Watts if CO2 would actually give you a whole watt/m^2 and not just a fraction of that.
So for a 1 week Hurricane you would need about 1200 weeks of "extra" energy to get enough for just 1 extra Hurricane per season. Hmm....How many weeks (or months) long is the Hurricane season ?

I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.

Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that?
Who disputed that? Did I ?...when I asked you to show me a spectral absorption % increase per ppm CO2 increase....of the same gas
And then to your "scientific" source:
Researchers have also studied how these climate changes – particularly increased temperatures and higher rainfall – have impacted the severity of hurricanes and other storms. While evidence does not show that these types of factors are the primary cause of damaging weather events, Washington Post reporters Emily Guskin and Brady Dennis noted that many researchers are very confident that climate change does contribute to more frequent and more intense storms.
Let me get that straight, there is no evidence which shows that but all it takes is for some WaPo reporters to say "many researchers are very confident"...to substitute for the lack of physical evidence.
In plain English all they have is the phony consensus based on statistics the ex-cartoonist from Australia constructed.
Geezus how hard can it be for anyone with a normal level of math skills to think it through how long it would take to just create 1 single extra Hurricane, never mind a record number of them with just 1 extra Watt/m^2.
And I am being overly generous here because it`s way less than 1 Watt.
The average Hurricane is 100 miles wide (156 km) and tracks for ~ 3500 km. This sucks up 600 Tera Watts for a duration of about 9 days...the average duration of a typical Atlantic hurricane.
The same area which supplies the energy for one of these can get it only back at a rate of 5.46 * 10^11 Watts if CO2 would actually give you a whole watt/m^2 and not just a fraction of that.
So for a 1 week Hurricane you would need about 1200 weeks of "extra" energy to get enough for just 1 extra Hurricane per season. Hmm....How many weeks (or months) long is the Hurricane season ?

Again I'm not a scientist never claimed to be, yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental. Theirs a concept I AM familiar with. High impact, low probability. It's the reason chemical plants, nuclear weapons and other dangerous items or places, invest heavily in safety. A risk of something highly dangerous going wrong, means you take as many precautions as possible. In the case of global warming the risks are global, long term and very, very serious if those scientists are right. If you are right what happens? So isn't it good policy to err on the side of caution?

Theirs a concept I AM familiar with. High impact, low probability. It's the reason chemical plants, nuclear weapons and other dangerous items or places, invest heavily in safety. A risk of something highly dangerous going wrong,
If you are familiar with that concept then you should know that nuclear weapons, certain chemical processes are without even a shadow of a doubt dangerous and if intended to be a weapon designed to be exactly that: high impact !
CO2 is not even remotely close to the hazard classifications most of the chemicals we use to produce the objects you take for granted.
yet I do know that their are way more scientists in the relevant fields that do support man made global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.
There are not way more scientists who support man made global warming unless you consider Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics plus all the engineering in all these fields as "non relevant". That "way more" is only true if you reduce science to tree ring readings etc. Without these highly dubious methods it is not possible to show a CO2 versus global temperature correlation.
Which is why the alarmists always piggy-back this statement in order to sell their pseudo science: global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.
Which is supposed to insure that no reasonable person can argue with the nonsense that preceded it.

CO2 is not even remotely close to the hazard classifications

For someone who uses energy outputs on the oceans to argue that hurricanes can't get more serious this is either a terrible misreading of what I claim or a deliberate one. I am not talking about the hazard classification of CO2. I'm talking about the GENERAL predicted consequences of global warming. Rising sea levels, Extreme rainfall, forest fires ,mass extinction, etc. Reducing it to the hazard classification of CO2 is dishonest.

There are not way more scientists who support man made global warming

Well the UN disagrees. And since ALL countries except the US accept the findings of that UN permit me to call bullshit on this claim. Hell even NASA has an entire website dedicated to it.NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

global warming and believe the consequences will be detrimental.

Pacific Island nations are slowly being eaten away
Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity
A few examples of it happening.
-Your country sinking in the waves I consider detrimental don't you?
-Living in California has become a bit more dangerous. Detrimental don't you think?
I also noticed you failed to address my premise.
If I'm right these things I just described will just get worse. REALLY HIGH IMPACT
What will happen if you are right? And why take the risk?

For someone who uses energy outputs on the oceans to argue that hurricanes can't get more serious this is either a terrible misreading of what I claim or a deliberate one.
First of all I did not say hurricanes can not get more serious. I said how much energy just one of them requires and there are supposed to be many more of these, which you and others who prefer to use ambiguous rubber statements instead of calculations. Now you are asking me how much more serious they can get due to CO2.
The answer is 0.008 times more serious than without any.
For someone who uses energy outputs on the oceans to argue....
Which other energy source do you think is being tapped by hurricanes ? A dry land mass does not spawn hurricanes they can only happen if the ocean is significantly warmer that the air above it.
And since ALL countries except the US accept the findings of that UN permit me to call bullshit on this claim
Another exaggeration. It`s certain political parties and their leaders who accept these findings which are tailored to influence political leaders and the IPCC has stated that.
Hell even NASA has an entire website dedicated to it.
So what if they have a web site for it? It`s not as if these so called "NASA scientists" have anything in common with the scientists at NASA who design and build the hardware NASA launches. It was a P.R. windfall for the IPCC after NASA had to bow to politicians and allowed climate crusaders to use the NASA emblem on their publications. Hell it worked as intended for people like you. All it took was the NASA logo and that is supposed to make "NASA science" out of the entire bullshit.
Not that it matters what you believe.
Your country sinking in the waves I consider detrimental don't you?
Not even your so called "NASA" scientists have a clue what size the polar ice caps will be after the length of time that would take. Each time the data is in contradiction with the predicted trend there is radio silence.

Well since you are stuck on just trying to keep on pushing your hurricane energy reasoning, something I already admitted to have no intelligent counterargument to,( not saying it doesn't exists, just that I don't have the background to do so), while NOT even attempt to actually engage my question. A question I have repeated several times to different people, while NOT getting an honest answer I don't see a point continuing. I highlight it for a reason. the reason being I DO want an honest conversation. Why continue?
As to NASA. It wasn't just the NASA logo. It was the .gov on the website. .gov means it's an official GOVERNMENT website.

 

[miketx]

Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.

How did they measure temperature in 2500 BC and what video equipment did they use to record it on for us?

For that you need a Michael Mann. He does not need a highly accurate thermometer to tell you within 1/10 of a degree accuracy what the temperature was....but is unwilling to show the raw data.
This leaves the rest of the scientists wondering how he does that:

Apparently he can measure tree rings within fractions of a millimeter accuracy, like in 0.1 mm increments which is 4/1000 of an inch. It`s impossible to machine wood to within 4 thou. You can do it with metal on a precision lathe but not with wood because 1 single hardwood fiber is 10 times thicker than a "Michael Mann" temperature increment:

For that you need a time machine. There is no way no how ever, that you can prove what the weather was 5000 years ago. Ever. All the squiggly lines and computers don't mean shit!

The readings are taken from ice core samples drawn in the arctic.
When it freezes, water grabs and retains part of the air above it and
the temperature of that air, once obtained, can be measured.

Yes, and it's as cold as ice.

 

[elektra]

den tackles climate change
Seems their economic growth is pretty nice.Sweden GDP Growth Rate | 1981-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

Yep, .5% economic growth is something to be real proud of.
Can I use your link, ha, ha, ha!

The Swedish economy expanded 0.8 percent on quarter in the three months to June 2018, lower than a 1 percent growth in the preliminary estimate, following a downwardly revised 0.5 percent expansion in the previous period and below market expectations of 1 percent, final figures showed.

You post a link showing a GDP expansion of .5% and I am suppose to take you serious? You are a joke, giving me links that show you are wrong.

Are you proposing that the USA follow Sweden and reduce our economy to .5% growth?

 

[forkup]

-Do you have data to support your claim that your neighbor is doing that, and what are the consequences on the world if you don't react? In the case of global warming the consequences effect everybody. And the data supporting it is sufficiently strong to have the entire world, save 1 country to try to at least curb those consequences. Seems a false equivalency in that light.

Post temperatures that show global warming since they began record keeping. I know you do not have that it is impossible for you to find the temperatures. Go to your NOAA site and find the actual temperatures. I dare ya. Post the temperatures or you are a simple hack, a liar, or a complete idiot. Prove anything that you state. You want supporting data, fine, show us the temperatures.

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
source is the Goddard institute.

 

[elektra]

Seems their economic growth is pretty nice.Sweden GDP Growth Rate | 1981-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

More people leave Sweden? No jobs, poor future, extreme costs? You really want to use Sweden as an example of what? You have gone from "the world will die if we dont build billions of solar panels", to, "look how great sweden is". Yet Sweden is not doing good.
More Swedes than ever are moving abroad

 

[elektra]

View attachment 217935View attachment 217935 Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
source is the Goddard institute.

That is not a temperature. a Temperature is 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Post the temperatures, not the manipulated data propaganda. It is that easy, post the Temperature. Can you do that. No, you can not. But go ahead and try. You know nothing of what you speak and think you can google search your foot out of your mouth. I have been here before, I know what you will find and post. It will not be the temperatures for anything.

 

[forkup]

den tackles climate change
Seems their economic growth is pretty nice.Sweden GDP Growth Rate | 1981-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

Yep, .5% economic growth is something to be real proud of.
Can I use your link, ha, ha, ha!

The Swedish economy expanded 0.8 percent on quarter in the three months to June 2018, lower than a 1 percent growth in the preliminary estimate, following a downwardly revised 0.5 percent expansion in the previous period and below market expectations of 1 percent, final figures showed.

You post a link showing a GDP expansion of .5% and I am suppose to take you serious? You are a joke, giving me links that show you are wrong.

Are you proposing that the USA follow Sweden and reduce our economy to .5% growth?

Sure use the link all you want. It does seem to at least indicate that you CAN have positive growth and be environmentally prudent. They've been in the front of the world on climate forever and they have had positive growth, most quarters higher then .5 percent. I also notice that you are unwilling to engage anything else in that post.

 

[forkup]

View attachment 217935View attachment 217935 Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
source is the Goddard institute.

That is not a temperature. a Temperature is 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Post the temperatures, not the manipulated data propaganda. It is that easy, post the Temperature. Can you do that. No, you can not. But go ahead and try. You know nothing of what you speak and think you can google search your foot out of your mouth. I have been here before, I know what you will find and post. It will not be the temperatures for anything.

Same source.

 

[elektra]

Sure use the link all you want. It does seem to at least indicate that you CAN have positive growth and be environmentally prudent. They've been in the front of the world on climate forever and they have had positive growth, most quarters higher then .5 percent. I also notice that you are unwilling to engage anything else in that post.

I see that you did not read your links nor quote from them and then you claim I am unwilling to engage? You go to google and use it as a deck of cards, you post half a dozen links with no context, then claim I am not engaging. I just showed one like is complete crap. The Swedish economy is barely positive which is resulting in thousands of Swedes leaving the country. And that is just the start! You put five seconds of thought into a link and then fault me for not spending a hour on each of your links? A hour at the least is what it takes to read, read the links, read the sources in the links, and cross reference those links and sources and premises presented. Anybody can go to the leftist democrat biased website and find propaganda sites to throw at people. It takes a bit of time and intelligence to actually create a post that is relevant.

 

[elektra]

If going green is so bad why are the countries who fully try to promote it not going bankrupt?
New data shows solar energy creates more jobs in America than any other industry
Seems it's a pretty good job creator.

Thank you for letting me use your links.

One census assesses the steep job growth created by the solar industry between 2010 and 2016.

That is job growth during the Obama administration which sucked. Period. It was less than 2% with most the jobs being created being government jobs or jobs funded by huge gifts of cash by giving Solar companies "tax rebates" they could literally sell for $100's of millions of dollars.

So, your link gives us old data showing the terrible job growth of the Obama administration being the extremely expensive weak electrical power of Solar. Now we will have to build Natural Gas and Nuclear power to offset that decade of loss.

That is three of your links that you must not of read. Old information that proves under Obama, our economy was in very real danger.

 

[elektra]

View attachment 217935View attachment 217935 Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
source is the Goddard institute.

That is not a temperature. a Temperature is 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Post the temperatures, not the manipulated data propaganda. It is that easy, post the Temperature. Can you do that. No, you can not. But go ahead and try. You know nothing of what you speak and think you can google search your foot out of your mouth. I have been here before, I know what you will find and post. It will not be the temperatures for anything.

Same source.

Nice pretty picture. Now post the actual temperatures, not some stupid graph that can not be compared with real facts.

 

[elektra]

View attachment 217935View attachment 217935 Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
source is the Goddard institute.

That is not a temperature. a Temperature is 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Post the temperatures, not the manipulated data propaganda. It is that easy, post the Temperature. Can you do that. No, you can not. But go ahead and try. You know nothing of what you speak and think you can google search your foot out of your mouth. I have been here before, I know what you will find and post. It will not be the temperatures for anything.

Same source.

Anybody can produce meanigless graphs. What does this graph tell us the temperature in the capital of the congo was, in 1890. Post temperatures, not a graph. This graph is meaningless. One must simply believe what is dictated in the graph. This is not even a discussion

 

[forkup]

Sure use the link all you want. It does seem to at least indicate that you CAN have positive growth and be environmentally prudent. They've been in the front of the world on climate forever and they have had positive growth, most quarters higher then .5 percent. I also notice that you are unwilling to engage anything else in that post.

I see that you did not read your links nor quote from them and then you claim I am unwilling to engage? You go to google and use it as a deck of cards, you post half a dozen links with no context, then claim I am not engaging. I just showed one like is complete crap. The Swedish economy is barely positive which is resulting in thousands of Swedes leaving the country. And that is just the start! You put five seconds of thought into a link and then fault me for not spending a hour on each of your links? A hour at the least is what it takes to read, read the links, read the sources in the links, and cross reference those links and sources and premises presented. Anybody can go to the leftist democrat biased website and find propaganda sites to throw at people. It takes a bit of time and intelligence to actually create a post that is relevant.

So when I use google and type Sweden GDP I'm being dishonest when I use the first link. Or Solar job creation? Wind job creation. For the record I don't expect you to even read every link I provide. Lord knows when you site a link citing Swedes are leaving the country because of jobs, or cost and lousy future and your article sites this
"However according to Solevid, there has been little detailed research on the specific reasons Swedes seek new lives abroad." You should be glad I don't click every link. When I use Google I try to keep bias out of it by making my queries as general as I can. Do you do the same?

 

[Wyatt earp]

-Do you have data to support your claim that your neighbor is doing that, and what are the consequences on the world if you don't react? In the case of global warming the consequences effect everybody. And the data supporting it is sufficiently strong to have the entire world, save 1 country to try to at least curb those consequences. Seems a false equivalency in that light.

Post temperatures that show global warming since they began record keeping. I know you do not have that it is impossible for you to find the temperatures. Go to your NOAA site and find the actual temperatures. I dare ya. Post the temperatures or you are a simple hack, a liar, or a complete idiot. Prove anything that you state. You want supporting data, fine, show us the temperatures.

View attachment 217935View attachment 217935 Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
source is the Goddard institute.

 

[forkup]

View attachment 217935View attachment 217935 Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
source is the Goddard institute.

That is not a temperature. a Temperature is 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Post the temperatures, not the manipulated data propaganda. It is that easy, post the Temperature. Can you do that. No, you can not. But go ahead and try. You know nothing of what you speak and think you can google search your foot out of your mouth. I have been here before, I know what you will find and post. It will not be the temperatures for anything.

Same source.

Anybody can produce meanigless graphs. What does this graph tell us the temperature in the capital of the congo was, in 1890. Post temperatures, not a graph. This graph is meaningless. One must simply believe what is dictated in the graph. This is not even a discussion

So let me get this straight? because I didn't provide the raw data, consisting of hundreds if not thousands of weather station making thousands of measurements over about 140 years I have to be dishonest? After I provide you with that, will you then ask me to calculate all these averages myself? And after I do that will you then insist on doing them yourself because you don't like the outcome?
If you have a dataset that disagrees with the one of the Goddard institute I invite you to provide it. But I will NOT indulge you moving the goalpost just because I give you what you asked.