Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[Cardinal Carminative]

What's the rate?

We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.

And these negative impacts may also include collapse of our currently established agricultural infrastructure.

This is SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE faster than another glacial advance would occur.

And the worst part is even if we stopped burning fossil fuels TODAY we might still suffer unimaginable climatic issues for decades and decades.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.

And these negative impacts may also include collapse of our currently established agricultural infrastructure.

This is SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE faster than another glacial advance would occur.

And the worst part is even if we stopped burning fossil fuels TODAY we might still suffer unimaginable climatic issues for decades and decades.

We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.

Perhaps. What's the rate?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.

Perhaps. What's the rate?

ummmm....do I need to explain what "rate" means? It's events/change in time. I gave you the change in time. The post was explicitly talking about a rate.

I worry that if you can't read and you don't know math you might have many more deficits than just being scientifically illiterate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ummmm....do I need to explain what "rate" means?

No, you need to tell me the rate.

It's all about "rates" in this game. When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.

What is the rate?

Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER

I guess you're talking about temperature change over a period of time, so spill it.

 

[Crick]

Global temperature records in close agreement

NASA's announcement this year - that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record - made headlines. But, how much does the ranking of a single year matter?

climate.nasa.gov

Looks like about 0.5 degrees C between 1960 and 2010. that would be about 1.0 C/century over that time span. But, hey, I'm no climate scientist. The rate from 1900 to 2000 looks to be about 0.8C/century, so these data show acceleration in the rate of warming. But, tell us Todd, had you never actually seen one of these graphs? Hundreds have been posted here in the last couple years and I'm pretty certain you know how to do the math. That would seem to make your inquiry rhetorical and that would seem to indicate that you didn't want to hear this information but, instead, make some specific comment. If so, what might that comment be?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 628397

Global temperature records in close agreement

NASA's announcement this year - that 2010 ties 2005 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record - made headlines. But, how much does the ranking of a single year matter?

climate.nasa.gov

Looks like about 0.5 degrees C between 1960 and 2010. that would be about 1.0 C/century over that time span. But, hey, I'm no climate scientist. The rate from 1900 to 2000 looks to be about 0.8C/century, so these data show acceleration in the rate of warming. But, tell us Todd, had you never actually seen one of these graphs? Hundreds have been posted here in the last couple years and I'm pretty certain you know how to do the math. That would seem to make your inquiry rhetorical and that would seem to indicate that you didn't want to hear this information but, instead, make some specific comment. If so, what might that comment be?

Looks like about 0.5 degrees C between 1960 and 2010. that would be about 1.0 C/century over that time span.

PV said, "We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years."

Do you believe another 0.5C-1.0C increase will cause "serious negative impacts to our society and our economy"? Why?

That would seem to make your inquiry rhetorical and that would seem to indicate that you didn't want to hear this information

Wrong. I want to hear PV's rate and why he feels it's so dangerous.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, you need to tell me the rate.

I already did. LOL.

It's all about "rates" in this game. When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.

What is the rate?

Asked and answered. If you can't understand that that's on you, not me.

Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER

I guess you're talking about temperature change over a period of time, so spill it.

LOL. Already did.

Can you read?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already did. LOL.



Asked and answered. If you can't understand that that's on you, not me.



LOL. Already did.

Can you read?

I already did. LOL.

LOL!

We may very well see serious negative impacts to our society and our economy within 50-100 years.

That's not a rate.

This is SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE faster than another glacial advance would occur.

This either.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That's not a rate.

LOL.

Hilarious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL.

Hilarious.

It's all about "rates" in this game. When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.

What's the rate?

within 50-100 years.

DURR

 

[ding]

And you do?

Sure. And if you had watched the whole video, you would have too.



You might be the least informed PhD in Geology in the world.

 

[ding]

Definitely. Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER than if we were looking down the barrel of another ice age.

It's all about "rates" in this game. When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.

The rate argument is like the severe weather argument. Wishful thinking.

 

[ding]

Definitely. Human activity is causing warming which will cause climate change MUCH FASTER than if we were looking down the barrel of another ice age.

We are in an ice age now, dummy.

 

[Crick]

It's all about "rates" in this game. When people have no real understanding of the topic they are prone to forget how important RATE is.

What's the rate?

within 50-100 years.

DURR

Enough Todd. What do you believe the rate to be? And why? And, might I ask, do you believe the world's climate scientists are unaware of this terribly tricky "rate" issue?

 

[koshergrl]

This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.

Yes but subjecting people to forced societal change will not in any way “fix” climate change.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Enough Todd. What do you believe the rate to be? And why? And, might I ask, do you believe the world's climate scientists are unaware of this terribly tricky "rate" issue?

What do you believe the rate to be?

Fuck if I know.

And, might I ask, do you believe the world's climate scientists are unaware of this terribly tricky "rate" issue?

I want to know if PV is aware.

 

[alang1216]

Yes but subjecting people to forced societal change will not in any way “fix” climate change.

And you know this how?

 

[koshergrl]

And you know this how?

Because fascism won’t stop the natural cycles of the earth.

 

[alang1216]

Because fascism won’t stop the natural cycles of the earth.

So you have a religious objection to dams, levees, and hurricane and tornado shelters? Also you'd object to taming earthquakes?

 

[Captain Caveman]

What other things?

Earthquakes, rock erosion, volcanoes, plate tectonics, sink holes etc.. all effect such things as CO2 and the weather. Scientists may predict what a certain volcano may have belched out in CO2, but they're unsure what levels were absorbed by such things as earthquakes. And anyone following the subject of climate, will know that the climate is driven by many factors but the current panic alarmists are suffering from is that believe it's just purely down to CO2.

If you study the earths rocks and ice cores from millions of years ago, you cannot compare to these samples because those samples do not cover such a short period of time. You could determine a possible CO2 reading that was at a level for so many thousands of years, but not 150 years,