500 scientists say there is no climate emergency

[ding]

Wrong.
The past natural warming cycle started about 50,000 years ago and melted off the glaciers that covered most of North America.
We are about 10,000 years after the natural warming cycle ended and the next cooling cycles started.

Your claim there was a warming starting 400 years ago is just false.

Temperature Plateau Likely Due to Deep Ocean Warming | Climate Central

Climate skeptics have seized on a pause in warming over the past five years, but the long-term trend is still upwards.

www.climatecentral.org

Obviously it was actually slightly cooling until around 1900 or so.

"...In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations.Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[ding]

Wrong.
The past natural warming cycle started about 50,000 years ago and melted off the glaciers that covered most of North America.
We are about 10,000 years after the natural warming cycle ended and the next cooling cycles started.

Your claim there was a warming starting 400 years ago is just false.

Temperature Plateau Likely Due to Deep Ocean Warming | Climate Central

Climate skeptics have seized on a pause in warming over the past five years, but the long-term trend is still upwards.

www.climatecentral.org

Obviously it was actually slightly cooling until around 1900 or so.

I don't see the little ice age on this graph. Where is it?

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Communism of course is always the most successful, but no one has ever allowed any large government to ever be communist.
For example, Lenin was a paid German agent to take Russia out of WWI, and Stalin was a capitalist bank robber.

The reason we can't allow the market to decide is that since fossil fuels are finite and unreplaceable, and we need them for fertilizers instead wasting them for transportation that can use other things.
For example, we can make hydrogen from nuclear power plants, in order to power vehicles.
Or we can do like Brazil and make ethanol from plants.

Communism failed.

 

[ding]

What the climate deniers ignore is that adding more carbon to the atmosphere does not itself cause heat, but changes how much heat is retained vs radiated away, constantly.
It is an accumulating process.
That is why the earth does not drop to zero degrees every night.
And the excess carbon we added will not stop retaining more and more heat for a very long time.
We do not know how long.
And we do not know then what the final temperature will be when it finally reaches equilibrium.
It may be so hot that eventually all the surface water in the oceans evaporate.

Oh, I get that. Simple physics shows us that the radiative forcing of CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2. Which I accept.

 

[elektra]

It is easy to prove you are totally wrong.

no, it easy to make uneducated statements with no basis in fact that complete idiots believe. Are you ready???

 

[elektra]

Since fossil fuels are ancient and take hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis and anerobic bacteria to create,

How do we know it does not take 1,000,000 years and a day? You are making proclamations based on bits and pieces of information that are unproven.

Hmmm, strike one for you

 

[elektra]

It is easy to prove you are totally wrong.
we will soon run out of fossil fuel regardless of what we do or decide.

when, exactly, soon is easy to predict, to the exact day, will be it a sunday or saturday, winter or summer, in one year? when?

strike 2

 

[elektra]

Green energy is anything but currently sequestered carbon based fossil fuel, and there is no doubt at all we will soon run out of sequestered carbon fossil fuel.

dont you mean hydrocarbon? and did you not say this once before so why are repeating yourself

strike 3, you are out, but we can keep playing, right?

 

[elektra]

Green energy is anything but currently sequestered carbon based fossil fuel

Green energy???? When we speak of green energy we are not talking about the sun or the wind, or geothermal. We are talking about the man made devices used to capture a small part of sunlight, a bit of the wind, and a little geothermal heat from the earth

Green Energy, we are speaking of man made machines or devices that are made from hydrocarbons (how about getting the terms right).

strike 4

 

[elektra]

And when it does run out,

strike 5, when does it run out? prove it!

 

[elektra]

then clearly industry will have to be "powered with green energy".

strike 6
you are making declarations, prove it

 

[elektra]

There will be nothing else.

strike 7
Nuclear Power

 

[elektra]

The only correct thing you said was that green energy is slightly more expensive than sequestered carbon fossil fuel.

Now you are a dirty filthy liar. I have never ever made that statement in any way shape or form.

you lose, when one must lie about what someone has said to make a point, they lose, and you have not said one thing that is correct, yet.

fucking piece of shit liar.

 

[elektra]

And when it does run out, then clearly industry will have to be "powered with green energy".

Green energy, when there is no more oil, there is no more Green Energy. But that is another post, tomorrow, if I feel like proving you wrong again.

Industry will be powered by green energy? How? The process to make steel, which you need for wind and solar power, requires energy for over 24 hours straight, to melt the iron ore. Further, melting iron ore requires coke, which we get from natural gas. Hmmmm, no more hydrocarbons no more steel

Fiberglass, melting silica, requires energy for than 24 hours
Polysilicon for solar, energy for more than 24 hours, and again
For both, we need coke, but we have no more.

we can not run industry with part time power.

of course, if we went 100%, or any green, the only reason we run out of oil on the particular date we do, is because we wasted it building the largest heavy industry project in history, green energy

to save ourselves we must waste oil, use all the oil, building inefficient short lived, wind and solar power plants.

individual posts I have made, there are points digby made that ripby needs to address,

easy to prove me wrong??? that is like saying, it easy to prove that it does not rain, the sun dont shine, I am simply stating facts

 

[elektra]

Communism of course is always the most successful, but no one has ever allowed any large government to ever be communist.

now that is funny, rigby loser says communism is always successful except it has never been allowed to be a large government

never tried but always successful, idiocy is that statement

 

[elektra]

What the climate deniers ignore is that adding more carbon to the atmosphere does not itself cause heat, but changes how much heat is retained vs radiated away, constantly.

We are not adding carbon to the atmosphere, you ignorant pompous idiot. We are adding CO2. Bigby2 knows so little, he/she uses the wrong terms.

what kind of factual discussion can we have if Lilby5 does not know exactly what is emitted

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I put him on ignore over a year ago.

LOL

Because you sissied out. You won't take your hilariously bad act to the pros.

 

[ding]

Because you sissied out. You won't take your hilariously bad act to the pros.

They are the one's who are hiding from us. Just where are your experts to defend your admitted ignorance?

I would relish having a conversation why their argument is so intentionally misleading because they don't discuss the features of the earth which affect climate. No mention whatsoever of the significance of the landmass distribution, the polar region geography, the significance of heat transport to the Arctic and the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which we currently live in.

So send them all. I will be happy to meet them in the bull ring.

 

[elektra]

A stupid and embarrassing lie..

These 500 scientists are welcome to put their money where their mouth is and publish science that contradicts the consensus.. Why don't they?

Now go on, make up Something paranoid and stupid, since you don't actually have any facts or arguments.

How about you prove there is a consensus and not just 6 people who state there is. I have read the report that claims there is a consensus. 6 people read the titles of reports, studies, or articles that we do not have access to, and based on the titles they conclude what all the scientists in the entire world think.

a fraction of all articles written, a determined by a group of activists, to reflect the opinion of everyone in the field of science.

and you think you are right?

 

[elektra]

They are the one's who are hiding from us. Just where are your experts to defend your admitted ignorance?

I followed fort dumb's comments all the way back to indiana, not once does the dunce offer any sort of comment that is other than trolling. At best one post that says, "I am right, you are not".