Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

Damn. In the depths of an ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. And CH4 was about 400 ppb. In the Eemian, 120,000 years ago, the CO2 was 300 ppm, and CH4 about 800 ppb. At that time, the climate was slightly warmer, and the oceans were about 20 ft higher than at present.

Now in the last 150 years, we have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 400+ ppm CO2, from 750 ppb CH4 to 1800+ ppb CH4. But you want to tell me that is not having any effect?

Forty five years ago, I had a job that included fighting forest fires. The fires we fought were measured in acres, and most were knocked down with what today would be considered minor effort. In that same area, last year, they had a fire that burned 175 square miles, and was pushed by a wind that the area had only experianced once before in the last century. It was spotting two miles ahead of itself. Even with the best of equipment, they could not stop it. In fact, their efforts were concentrated on saving the three small towns in that area. At the same time, unusual winds were creating the same kinds of fires north and east of there in Oregon, and all across Northeastern Washington.

Yes, we are seeing unusual conditions. This year we saw a fire that burned a town in Alberta, and about a thousand square miles of forest. While there have been big fires before, we did not have super tankers and the equipment we have today to fight those fires. Even with the equipment we have today, when we get that unusual weather, all we can try to do is save the towns.

Yes, weather changes over the period of a century. However, what counts is the rate of change, and that is accelerating at present, and will continue to accelerate as the oceans and atmosphere warms.
 
That was the "old school" ice age understanding. Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over. The old "ice age" theory was that everything froze and land never moves. That theory was wrong. The data proves it wrong, even today, with Greenland frozen and NA not...

Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over.


You still haven't documented the simultaneous North American Ice Age.
Still looking for a Kodak photo I see! DERP

Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?
All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.
timelines overlap. he's done.

450000 to 800000 years ago, Greenland green --link presented
16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented. If you can't see the overlap timeline, I can't help you.
 
Last edited:
Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…
Well, someone telling me there isn't global warming and they even disparage it and call us "warmers". Funny the global climate Is warming and we see dramatic changes in climate and massive forest fires and the rise in Earth's overall temps. Glaciers melting. But this is just a natural blip in the climate? No, don't think so.
what dramatic change have you seen?
 
Television hasn't been around long enough to be a measure of global warming, even if that were possible, which it isn't.
 
Damn. In the depths of an ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. And CH4 was about 400 ppb. In the Eemian, 120,000 years ago, the CO2 was 300 ppm, and CH4 about 800 ppb. At that time, the climate was slightly warmer, and the oceans were about 20 ft higher than at present.

Now in the last 150 years, we have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 400+ ppm CO2, from 750 ppb CH4 to 1800+ ppb CH4. But you want to tell me that is not having any effect?

Forty five years ago, I had a job that included fighting forest fires. The fires we fought were measured in acres, and most were knocked down with what today would be considered minor effort. In that same area, last year, they had a fire that burned 175 square miles, and was pushed by a wind that the area had only experianced once before in the last century. It was spotting two miles ahead of itself. Even with the best of equipment, they could not stop it. In fact, their efforts were concentrated on saving the three small towns in that area. At the same time, unusual winds were creating the same kinds of fires north and east of there in Oregon, and all across Northeastern Washington.

Yes, we are seeing unusual conditions. This year we saw a fire that burned a town in Alberta, and about a thousand square miles of forest. While there have been big fires before, we did not have super tankers and the equipment we have today to fight those fires. Even with the equipment we have today, when we get that unusual weather, all we can try to do is save the towns.

Yes, weather changes over the period of a century. However, what counts is the rate of change, and that is accelerating at present, and will continue to accelerate as the oceans and atmosphere warms.

In 1871, during the week of Oct. 8-14, it must have seemed like the whole world was ablaze for residents of the Upper Midwest. Four of the worst fires in U.S. history all broke out in the same week across the region. The Great Chicago Fire, which destroyed about a third of the city's valuation at the time and left more than 100,000 residents homeless, stole the headlines.

But at the same time, three other fires also scorched the region. Blazes leveled the Michigan cities of Holland and Manistee in what has been referred to as the Great Michigan Fire, while across the state another fire destroyed the city of Port Huron. The worst fire of them all, however, might have been the Great Peshtigo Fire, a firestorm that ravaged the Wisconsin countryside, leaving more than 1,500 dead — the most fatalities by fire in U.S. history.

That all of these devastating fires happened at the same time, over such wide distances, has persuaded many researchers that it was no coincidence. In fact, some have even suggested that the fires were caused by a shower of meteorites, fragments from the impact of Comet Biela. Others believe that high winds moving through the region offer a more sensible explanation for the unusual confluence of events.

---------

The Great Fire of 1910, also occasionally referred to as the "Big Burn," is believed to be the largest single fire in recorded U.S. history. It burned more than 3 million acres in Idaho, Montana and Washington — in all, a total area roughly the size of Connecticut. There were 87 fatalities from the fire and 78 of those were firefighters.

The handling of the blaze went on to shape the future of the U.S. Forest Service. Immediately after the 1910 fire, the service vowed to fight all wildfires, even ones that are naturally occurring and of no threat to human life or property. The merits of this policy are still debated today, especially by ecologists who insist that some wildfires are necessary for ecosystem health.
 
Damn. In the depths of an ice age, the CO2 was at 180 ppm. And CH4 was about 400 ppb. In the Eemian, 120,000 years ago, the CO2 was 300 ppm, and CH4 about 800 ppb. At that time, the climate was slightly warmer, and the oceans were about 20 ft higher than at present.

Now in the last 150 years, we have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 400+ ppm CO2, from 750 ppb CH4 to 1800+ ppb CH4. But you want to tell me that is not having any effect?

Forty five years ago, I had a job that included fighting forest fires. The fires we fought were measured in acres, and most were knocked down with what today would be considered minor effort. In that same area, last year, they had a fire that burned 175 square miles, and was pushed by a wind that the area had only experianced once before in the last century. It was spotting two miles ahead of itself. Even with the best of equipment, they could not stop it. In fact, their efforts were concentrated on saving the three small towns in that area. At the same time, unusual winds were creating the same kinds of fires north and east of there in Oregon, and all across Northeastern Washington.

Yes, we are seeing unusual conditions. This year we saw a fire that burned a town in Alberta, and about a thousand square miles of forest. While there have been big fires before, we did not have super tankers and the equipment we have today to fight those fires. Even with the equipment we have today, when we get that unusual weather, all we can try to do is save the towns.

Yes, weather changes over the period of a century. However, what counts is the rate of change, and that is accelerating at present, and will continue to accelerate as the oceans and atmosphere warms.
so tell me, do you think the fires are worse today because of global warming, or the fact that millions of people moved into those forest areas on the west coast over the course of a hundred plus years? Apples and Oranges When did the country open up the westward expansion? the lunacy of you all is amazing. Can you imagine adding wooden homes in an already wooded area blocking out airflow and creating additional fuel for a fire don't you understand?

Edit: not to mention the number of added igniting possibilities. Why was there a smokey the bear?
 
Fires are caused by fuel, oxygen and heat. Damn that oxygen...
 
Yep, that's the level of "science" by the doomsdayers.

Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models “increasingly are unnecessary” because the impact is obvious.

“Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,” Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

“What is disconcerting to me and so many of my colleagues is that these tools that we’ve spent years developing increasingly are unnecessary because we can see climate change, the impacts of climate change, now, playing out in real time, on our television screens, in the 24-hour news cycle,” he said.

Mr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, spoke before the committee June 17 in Phoenix.

His comment drew hoots from climate skeptics, including the website Greenie Watch, which posted his comment under the headline, “‘Scientist’ Michael Mann says there is no need for statistics: You can just SEE global warming.”

“Unsurprising. The statistics are pretty doleful for Warmism,” the site said in a Monday post.

Keep reading…
Well, someone telling me there isn't global warming and they even disparage it and call us "warmers". Funny the global climate Is warming and we see dramatic changes in climate and massive forest fires and the rise in Earth's overall temps. Glaciers melting. But this is just a natural blip in the climate? No, don't think so.

we see dramatic changes in climate

Dramatic changes? Sounds serious.

and massive forest fires

Yeah, those never happened before.

But this is just a natural blip in the climate?

What's the difference between a natural blip and an unnatural blip? Any stats, or just feelings?
What bothers me is the flippant attitude people have here about this. Turn up your air conditioning and drown out the warming global climate and people like me.Yes, the climate is changing, Yes, humanity is causing it, not variants like solar temps or other variables. Human created CO2 is the culprit, along with heat bubbles created over human cities, a major problem, we are seeing major droughts and forest fires now, because of human pollution,and we can't escape it anymore.

I guess world population 1800 was around 1 billion people today it is over 7 billion.

So 6 billion more people exhaling must be a contributor to the increase in C02...

We neeed more liberal abortions that will solve it.
 
Now in the last 150 years, we have gone from 280 ppm CO2 to 400+ ppm CO2, from 750 ppb CH4 to 1800+ ppb CH4. But you want to tell me that is not having any effect?


The DATA tells you that, parrot.

Highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE.

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adds at least 80 billion tons of ice every year.


CO2 has precisely NOTHING to do with Earth temperature - sincerely, the DATA
 
Fires are caused by fuel, oxygen and heat. Damn that oxygen...


... because it couldn't be that humans are consuming more and more of nature's fresh water, drying out plant life...

nope, because there would be some "expert" for your BIRDBRAIN to PARROT if that was happening...
 
Television hasn't been around long enough to be a measure of global warming, even if that were possible, which it isn't.


TV show "Hawaii 50" has been around twice, and both times on the SAME BEACH, and the beach is just as far out in the water this time as it was 50 years ago....

which is why all of the warmers' "sinking islands" are right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire....
 
Greenland was clearly green 1 million years ago as I have documented over and over and over.

You still haven't documented the simultaneous North American Ice Age.
Still looking for a Kodak photo I see! DERP

Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?
All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.
timelines overlap. he's done.

450000 to 800000 years ago, Greenland green --link presented
16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented. If you can't see the overlap timeline, I can't help you.



16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented


Yes, his theory that North America was buried under ice, continuously for a million plus years, until 16000 years ago, was funny.
And wrong.
So if his "overlap" is based on bad info, why do you feel that proves his claim?
 
This is our dispute.

The glaciers digging out the Great Lakes were 2 miles tall, outside the Arctic Circle, 500 plus miles from where the NA ice age began at the top of Northern Canada. Todd thinks those 2 mile high glaciers were just a few weeks old. I think they were the result of tens of millions of years of NA being under a growing ice age. That's our dispute. How old were those 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes.

The Antarctic Ice Age, estimated to be at least 40 million years old, does not have 2 mile high glaciers out by the Antarctic Circle yet. It will in the next few million years, but not yet, proving that the NA ice age was older 16k years ago than the AA ice age is now... unless you get your "climate science" from the "Day after Tomorrow" movie like Todd does...
 
This is our dispute.

The glaciers digging out the Great Lakes were 2 miles tall, outside the Arctic Circle, 500 plus miles from where the NA ice age began at the top of Northern Canada. Todd thinks those 2 mile high glaciers were just a few weeks old. I think they were the result of tens of millions of years of NA being under a growing ice age. That's our dispute. How old were those 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes.

The Antarctic Ice Age, estimated to be at least 40 million years old, does not have 2 mile high glaciers out by the Antarctic Circle yet. It will in the next few million years, but not yet, proving that the NA ice age was older 16k years ago than the AA ice age is now... unless you get your "climate science" from the "Day after Tomorrow" movie like Todd does...

Todd thinks those 2 mile high glaciers were just a few weeks old.


I think if you doubled your IQ, you'd reach cretin level intelligence.

proving that the NA ice age was older 16k years ago than the AA ice age is now


Any glacier shrinkage during those pesky interglacial periods you like to ignore?

That's our dispute. How old were those 2 mile high glaciers digging out the Great Lakes.


Feel free to post a link backing your claim.
It would be a nice change.
 
Any glacier shrinkage during those pesky interglacial periods you like to ignore?


ice cores suggest ice ages do not shrink, they grow by manufacturing a new ice core every year, which is FROZEN...

That two mile high glacier grew a tiny bit each year as it pushed slowly south. To fail to understand how old is that glacier is to admit you'd believe CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice... while growing Antarctic Sea Ice at the same time...
 
Still looking for a Kodak photo I see! DERP

Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?
All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.
timelines overlap. he's done.

450000 to 800000 years ago, Greenland green --link presented
16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented. If you can't see the overlap timeline, I can't help you.



16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented


Yes, his theory that North America was buried under ice, continuously for a million plus years, until 16000 years ago, was funny.
And wrong.
So if his "overlap" is based on bad info, why do you feel that proves his claim?
Still looking for a Kodak photo I see! DERP

Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?
All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.
timelines overlap. he's done.

450000 to 800000 years ago, Greenland green --link presented
16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented. If you can't see the overlap timeline, I can't help you.



16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented


Yes, his theory that North America was buried under ice, continuously for a million plus years, until 16000 years ago, was funny.
And wrong.
So if his "overlap" is based on bad info, why do you feel that proves his claim?
Post #215, link provided.
 
Any glacier shrinkage during those pesky interglacial periods you like to ignore?


ice cores suggest ice ages do not shrink, they grow by manufacturing a new ice core every year, which is FROZEN...

That two mile high glacier grew a tiny bit each year as it pushed slowly south. To fail to understand how old is that glacier is to admit you'd believe CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice... while growing Antarctic Sea Ice at the same time...

ice cores suggest ice ages do not shrink

Glaciers don't shrink? LOL!
You can post your ice core data from the NA glacier if that proves your claim.

That two mile high glacier grew a tiny bit each year as it pushed slowly south.

Yup.

To fail to understand how old is that glacier is


To fail to prove how old it was.......
 
Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?
All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.
timelines overlap. he's done.

450000 to 800000 years ago, Greenland green --link presented
16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented. If you can't see the overlap timeline, I can't help you.



16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented


Yes, his theory that North America was buried under ice, continuously for a million plus years, until 16000 years ago, was funny.
And wrong.
So if his "overlap" is based on bad info, why do you feel that proves his claim?
Still looking for any proof of his stupid claims.
Did you see the newest?
All he'll or anyone have is a timeline. And he presented it fine.

Now if only he could post one that backs up his claim, I can stop mocking his idiocy.
timelines overlap. he's done.

450000 to 800000 years ago, Greenland green --link presented
16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented. If you can't see the overlap timeline, I can't help you.



16000 years ago NE recovered from an over million year ice age--link presented


Yes, his theory that North America was buried under ice, continuously for a million plus years, until 16000 years ago, was funny.
And wrong.
So if his "overlap" is based on bad info, why do you feel that proves his claim?
Post #215, link provided.

Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

#215 was Crick.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom