Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

[ding]

He doesn't even have a degree in geology. He has a community college certificate related to coal mining!

He is a she.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is that relevant? It is the rate of change that concerns us

Follow the scien...er, consensus!

This is my main problem with climate "science". There's absolutely no evidence linking the delta in CO2 to temperature, let alone climate. Yet the Warmers insist that the world works as you allege.

No, thanks.

 

[mamooth]

I just showed you the curves, dummy.

Yes, the curves didn't show what you claimed. That's the point. Your own sources don't back up your kook claims.

Point one is that you haven't even looked at your own graphs. You're a cut-and-paste propaganda monkey who has no clue about what his propaganda says.

Point two is that you refuse to tell us the source of your graphs, making you look even more like a cult propaganda monkey.

 

[mamooth]

Neither Crick nor any other Warmer will address how CO2 magically reforms after leaving the oceans

Chemistry 101 -- that is, freshman chemistry -- would have explained it to you just fine, had you ever gotten that far in science. But you haven't. You're completely ignorant of even the basics.

Those of normal intelligence, those who are not poster children for Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, they understand their own limitations. You don't. You're a butthurt cult imbecile, so you have no concept of just how stupid you are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Chemistry 101 -- that is, freshman chemistry -- would have explained it to you just fine, had you ever gotten that far in science. But you haven't. You're completely ignorant of even the basics.

Those of normal intelligence, those who are not poster children for Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, they understand their own limitations. You don't. You're a butthurt cult imbecile, so you have no concept of just how stupid you are.

Insults, no explanation.

I wonder why that's standard response from the Moonbat AGW Cult?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes, the curves didn't show what you claimed. That's the point. Your own sources don't back up your kook claims.

Point one is that you haven't even looked at your own graphs. You're a cut-and-paste propaganda monkey who has no clue about what his propaganda says.

Point two is that you refuse to tell us the source of your graphs, making you look even more like a cult propaganda monkey.

You lie just like PV lied and I showed YOU the link for that chart you moron!

The chart is 100% based on the Ice core data, too bad you couldn't find the link to see that,

HINT: the link is right under the chart in post 13 the first time it appeared.

Already you forgot what you read just three days ago POST 155,

===

Then I jumped in to try helping his slow motion brain to learn the source that was given to him twice already.

POST 34,

"You asked for the source for the chart which he already posted it in POST 13 you sure have trouble reading simple posts and not just here."

The retard replies and keep in mind this is now 58 minutes after Ding at Post 25 gave him the source link for the SECOND time,

PV writes at 6:05,

"I didn't see the source link. Could you point me to the post where it was?"

This after THREE times he was shown where the Source link is.

It is clear we are dealing with another dog eared drooling warmist/alarmist GOOK who can't figure out simple answers to his repeated requests for the source which TWO people answered him several times where it is then he vanished.

===

All the PV Gook needed to do was go to post 13 where the chart first showed up with the Source link right below it.

He saw the whole thing at post 16 when replied to the chart anyway where the freaking link is located right under the chart!

This is what he saw:

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years.

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years​

=====

Mamooth can't follow the information well either.




It appears that PV system is resting lately in silence probably due to some brain damage.....

 

[mamooth]

You lie just like PV lied and I showed YOU the link for that chart you moron!

Your posts are literally unreadable. You don't seem to be in your right mind. It's possible you're feigning dementia in order to deflect, or it could be actual dementia. In any case, like everyone else, I'm not going to waste time on your raving. I'll just bring the discussion back to what you keep running from.

Why are you pretending that one spot in Greenland represents global climate?

Why are you using a graph that has no data more recent than 35 years ago?

And why are you relying on the "natural cycles changed climate in the past, so humans can't change climate!" stupidity?

 

[mamooth]

Insults, no explanation.

The solubility of gases is covered in Chemistry 101.

If you weren't just a butthurt troll, you could look it up yourself.

Yet you won't, because you _are_ just a butthurt troll.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your posts are literally unreadable. You don't seem to be in your right mind. It's possible you're feigning dementia in order to deflect, or it could be actual dementia. In any case, like everyone else, I'm not going to waste time on your raving. I'll just bring the discussion back to what you keep running from.

Why are you pretending that one spot in Greenland represents global climate?

Why are you using a graph that has no data more recent than 35 years ago?

And why are you relying on the "natural cycles changed climate in the past, so humans can't change climate!" stupidity?

It is your brain having serious problems because,

Number 1) I never said the Chart represents global climate.

Number 2) I didn't originally post the chart that was Ding in post 13 (You scared again?) and it was over a point DING made that PV and YOU have yet to acknowledge/understand which is why he keeps asking about it over and over hoping one of the warmist/alarmists KOOKS can conjure up a real intelligent answer but apparently that is beyond your brain power level.

Number 3) That was the latest data added to the chart as explained in the link you never visited as your question made that clear.

Number 4) I never made that Natural climate changed climate of the past argument thus you messed up yet again.

I haven't run from anything it is your usual inability to QUOTE me is why you keep making unsupported blanked assertions or flat lies against me which is why I am treating you so badly since you are so freaking stupid and full of lies and hypocrisy.

It is likely you still can't find the LINK to the chart either as you still show no indication that you have.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Frank, you should investigate the difference between molecular and ionic solutions. If you want to look like the complete science idiot everyone already believes you to be, continue to claim that this is some sort of new discovery.

complete science idiot

Are men with tits women? Just seeing if you are a complete science idiot...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The solubility of gases is covered in Chemistry 101.

If you weren't just a butthurt troll, you could look it up yourself.

Yet you won't, because you _are_ just a butthurt troll.

You're actually claiming that CO2 reforms in the atmosphere after dissolving in the ocean, bleaching the corals and generating massive amount of heat hopelessly trapped in the deep ocean?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Poor, poor abubu. Gave me unhappy face because he believes men with tits are women...

 

[mamooth]

Number 1) I never said the Chart represents global climate.

Then why are you focusing on it exclusively? Doing so looks like a cherrypicking fallacy. Greenland has seen a slowdown in warming recently, but that slowdown is local to Greenland. Thus, it's not honest to focus on Greenland and claim there's no warming.

Number 2) I didn't originally post the chart that was Ding in post 13 (You scared again?) and it was over a point DING made that PV and YOU have yet to acknowledge/understand which is why he keeps asking about it over and over hoping one of the warmist/alarmists KOOKS can conjure up a real intelligent answer but apparently that is beyond your brain power level.

I'm not sure what that was, but it only bore a passing resemblance to English.

Number 3) That was the latest data added to the chart as explained in the link you never visited as your question made that clear.

It took long enough, but I finally got you to admit that it's an Easterbrook propaganda article, and not peer-reviewed science.

Number 4) I never made that Natural climate changed climate of the past argument thus you messed up yet again.

Being that you focus a piece titled "The past is key to the future", it certainly looks like your argument.

If it's not your argument, then why are you bringing up the natural cycles thing over and over? After all, if you admit that humans can cause warming, then talking about natural cycles is pointless.

 

[mamooth]

You're actually claiming that CO2 reforms in the atmosphere

Obviously not. You're the only person here retarded enough to keep saying that, and everyone is wondering why.

The oceans are net CO2 _absorbers_. This is basic stuff, and you fail at it completely.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obviously not. You're the only person here retarded enough to keep saying that, and everyone is wondering why.

The oceans are net CO2 _absorbers_. This is basic stuff, and you fail at it completely.

Of course you didn't read the post before mine where the Warmer claimed that's what happens.

That's what I responded too

Goodnight, Gracie

 

[ArrojaLaBomba]

Evolution is dumber than shit.

You believe a prokaryote evolved into a eukaryote some 3 billion years ago, but only once ... never again. Yet evolution is all about randomness of very large probabilities. So shouldn't that very basic precursor to all other life happen over and over again? Many times? To be probable enough to happen at all? Once in 3 billion years is so improbable that it's impossible (statistical anomalies of orders of 10^60th power or greater are deemed impossible).

But let's not stop there.

You're telling me that humans, with our big brains, took 600,000 out of 700,000 years to figure out how to:

• Start a fire
• Make a clay pot
• Make clothes

You're dumber than shit.

Ohh and extra credit for dumbshits.

All living proteins are right handed. Left handed proteins are toxic and will kill you.

Figure that one out if proteins are supposed to be naturally created by accidental lightning strikes of tars or some dumb shit.

Where did evolution come from?

 

[gipper]

Check it out, we've got some classic denier retardation here making yet another appearance.

"DERP! DERP! DERP! Climate change happened naturally in the past, so humans can't change climate! DERRRRRRRRRP!"

That's the same logic as saying "Forest fires used to always be natural, so humans can't cause forest fires."

It's staggeringly stupid logic to embrace, therefore every denier embraces it. That cult self-selects for stupidity. If you're not a moron, you get ejected from the cult.

When the sun micronova in the next 20 years right on the clock cycle, the world will start anew and the few human beings left alive won’t give two shits about global warming.

 

[Cellblock2429]

"700,000 years ago (Climate Change) led to hotter, drier conditions in South Africa and h. heidelbergensis' evolutionary response to those changes eventually gave rise to Homo sapiens."

And we're still here in 2022. 700,000 years ago AOC would have said we only had twelve years left. Imagine that, Climate Change 700,000 years ago caused global temperatures to rise. Few cows were farting at the time, no trains, planes, or automobiles and almost no fossil fuels. No businesses spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. No nothing, and yet the Earth warmed and gave rise to Home sapiens and the spread of civilizations around the planet.

Supercomputer simulations show climate change’s role in early human migration

A research team from South Korea's Pusan National University, revealed research Wednesday that suggests a link between modern humanity's evolution and changes in prehistoric weather.

www.yahoo.com

/-----/ Mallard Fillmore is always on topic, every day.

 

[mamooth]

When the sun micronova in the next 20 years right on the clock cycle, the world will start anew and the few human beings left alive won’t give two shits about global warming.

Cool. This is a new doomsday cult prediction that I hadn't heard before. Can you tell us more?

 

[mamooth]

Of course you didn't read the post before mine where the Warmer claimed that's what happens.

That person was talking about why CO2 lagged temperature during past warmups from an ice age. Orbital factors caused a slight warming, that warmed the oceans, that caused the oceans to release CO2, and the CO2 feedback took over from there.

That's not the only thing happening now. There are two competing factors at play. The warming of the oceans makes the oceans want to emit 1% more CO2, but the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 makes the oceans want to absorb 40% more CO2. 40% is more than 1%, so the oceans are absorbing CO2, despite the temperature increase.