Climatechangevangelistas! Please explain this...

[edthecynic]

Back in the 1970s you stupid Environmental Wackos were telling us that the doom would be an ice age.

Nope, that was you denialist whackos.

 

[edthecynic]

This chart says we will probably get an ice age in the not too distant future.

Actually your chart says we should have had a new Ice Age already!
Why do you suppose we haven't?????

 

[Crepitus]

I was watching network news tonight with the weather person describing the "1 in 500 years" rain in NYC and stating it was clearly caused by "climate change".
It made me wonder then about these two FACTs that the global warming evangelistas seemingly are unaware of.

Fact 1.
Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.
A sediment core excavated from 400m (1,300ft) below the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has enabled scientists to delve far back into the region's past.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered

news.bbc.co.uk

Fact 2.
Projections show that the area of land and sea that falls within the Arctic Circle is home to an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil, an incredible 13% of Earth's reserves.

Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?

Why is there so much oil beneath the Arctic — and do we really need it?

www.livescience.com

So please tell me you global warming, climate change "evangelistas"......
BIG question ?
Why 50 million years ago did the North Pole have tropical temperatures... was there "global warming"?
(Tropical climates are characterized by monthly average temperatures of 18 ℃ (64.4 ℉)
2nd Big question ?
If oil is formed from mixtures of hydrocarbons that formed from the remains of animals and plants (diatoms) that lived millions of years ,
how come there is 90 billion barrels in the Arctic Circle? Was there "global warming" when this animals and plants were in the Arctic Circle?

I've provided the FACTS that support the premise "global warming" has occurred in the past... Now refute these facts.

Damn, son. Quit cutting school. They could have explained all of this to you.

 

[justoffal]

I'm not a climate expert and you demonstrate by that question that you're completely uneducated on the question, as well as being simplistic with your kneejerk conclusions.

You can believe whatever you want to believe but it's still most likely out of fear of understanding the scientific facts.
Devote a couple of years of your life to getting up to speed with the world's climate experts.

Why? They all contradict each other.
There is no broad consensus whatsoever. They have all managed to agree on one thing and even that is contentious....climate changes..whoah!

It's time for a massive Homer Simpson moment complete with an enormous DUH followed by a full on head slap.

Jo

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no broad consensus whatsoever.

Stupid lie.

 

[justoffal]

Actually your chart says we should have had a new Ice Age already!
Why do you suppose we haven't?????

Man for people who like to use broad brush generalizations you sure get awfully demanding and particular when it comes down to something that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.

So according to Al Gore the North Pole should be ice free for years now. What happened to that?

See how easy this is? Oh and while I'm at it let me throw in a few insults like you're ignorant and need more education. You're a mental mosquito compared to the minds who don't agree with you. Hey why don't we just get all third grade about it and call each other poo poo heads??.... It's what most of the AGW cultist posts on the subject look like.

 

[justoffal]

Stupid lie.

Nope.... The internet is full of opposing vjiewpoints from degreed scientists by the way. Claiming that only the ones you agree with are legitimate is just plain childish.

 

[edthecynic]

NOW you give me the proof that all TREES decay in one year

Notice what this professional LIAR did, I pointed out that the LEAVES decay yearly and the LIAR changed it to "TREES." Now trees and roots do decay over time releasing CO2, but that is offset by the new growth of trees taking their place, which is why I also pointed out when you first posted your LIE that MATURE forests are carbon neutral over the full carbon cycle of trees because in a mature forest there is no room for new growth unless older trees die and decay.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope.... The internet is full of opposing vjiewpoints from degreed scientists by the way

No it isn't. You have been fooled by your own poor grasp of mathematics and your confirmation bias. Yes, there is broad consensus, both among scientists from every field and even more so in the research.

 

[edthecynic]

So according to Al Gore the North Pole should be ice free for years now. What happened to that?

His timetable is a little off, but he is NOT a scientist, he is an evangelist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

His timetable is a little off, but he is NOT a scientist, he is an evangelist.

And that isn't what Al Gore said anyway. These gullible fools have gobbled up so many lies they don't even have long distance relationship with the truth.

 

[Rigby5]

I was watching network news tonight with the weather person describing the "1 in 500 years" rain in NYC and stating it was clearly caused by "climate change".
It made me wonder then about these two FACTs that the global warming evangelistas seemingly are unaware of.

Fact 1.
Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.
A sediment core excavated from 400m (1,300ft) below the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has enabled scientists to delve far back into the region's past.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered

news.bbc.co.uk

Fact 2.
Projections show that the area of land and sea that falls within the Arctic Circle is home to an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil, an incredible 13% of Earth's reserves.

Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?

Why is there so much oil beneath the Arctic — and do we really need it?

www.livescience.com

So please tell me you global warming, climate change "evangelistas"......
BIG question ?
Why 50 million years ago did the North Pole have tropical temperatures... was there "global warming"?
(Tropical climates are characterized by monthly average temperatures of 18 ℃ (64.4 ℉)
2nd Big question ?
If oil is formed from mixtures of hydrocarbons that formed from the remains of animals and plants (diatoms) that lived millions of years ,
how come there is 90 billion barrels in the Arctic Circle? Was there "global warming" when this animals and plants were in the Arctic Circle?

I've provided the FACTS that support the premise "global warming" has occurred in the past... Now refute these facts.

Of course there has been global warming in the past.
But as the ice age and warming cycles standardized about the last dozen times, the normal cycle has been about 110,000 years long.
But by burning so much fossil fuel and adding 5 trillion additional tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year, we have accelerated the cycle artificially to only about 200 years.
You can easily adapt to cycles 110,000 years long ,but not to a cycle only 200 years long.

 

[Rigby5]

So what caused the global warming millions of years ago? You are ASSUMING that the existence of HUMANS is the cause of today's so-called global warming...then what was the cause then? I'm just asking what was the cause of tropical temperatures in the North Pole with no humans.

It is a very simple cycle.
When plants do well, they use up the carbon in the air, and then it that starts to make it get cold.
When it gets cold enough, the plants die, and release their carbon back into the air, which makes it slowly start to warm up again.
But again, the last dozen of those cycles have averaged about 110,000 years long.

By burning sequestered fossil fuel, we release millions of years worth of fossil carbon all at once.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Of course there has been global warming in the past.
But as the ice age and warming cycles standardized about the last dozen times, the normal cycle has been about 110,000 years long.
But by burning so much fossil fuel and adding 5 trillion additional tons of carbon to the atmosphere every year, we have accelerated the cycle artificially to only about 200 years.
You can easily adapt to cycles 110,000 years long ,but not to a cycle only 200 years long.

Why not?

 

[Batcat]

There are two important things rarely discussed to consider when debating the causes of global warming.

1) The sun.

2) Military weather control.

Study Finds Sun May Be Leading Cause of Global Warming

A new study by nearly two dozen scientists found that rising global temperatures may be caused by the sun, rather than carbon dioxide. According to The Australian, a paper by 23 solar physics and climate science experts from 14 different cou

humanevents.com

Has China Mastered Weather Modification? Should We Worry?

Using rockets and pickup trucks, Chinese officials are seeding clouds and bringing the rain. But do they have other uses in mind?

www.bloomberg.com

Commanding and Controlling the Weather by 2025?

In April 1997, William S. Cohen , who was then the U.S. Secretary of Defense when Bill Clinton held the position of President

mysteriousuniverse.org

US Air Force Admit They Can Control the Weather

Beyond the Smoke & Mirrors

geopolitics.co

 

[Rigby5]

Back in the 1970s you stupid Environmental Wackos were telling us that the doom would be an ice age. That is if over population didn't get us first.

This chart says we will probably get an ice age in the not too distant future.


View attachment 534682

Before the last 50 years of excessive carbon emissions and global warming we WERE starting to head into a cooling, ice age, period.
But look at your own graph.
The full ice age and warming cycle is over 110,000 years long.
We were just barely starting the beginning of the cooling off period, 50 years ago.

But what is even worse, is that now we are adding an artificial new warming right on top of the already hottest peak of the natural cycle.
That means we will make is much hotter than it has ever been. Possibly hot enough to cause total species extinction.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are two important things rarely discussed to consider when debating the causes of global warming.

1) The sun.

It may seem that way to a nonscientist who gets his climate science info from dubious sources, but the actual scientists have been studying the solar effects since day one of the theory. There is an entire field dedicated to studying the Sun and its effects on our planet, and they have a contingent involved in every IPCC.

 

[toobfreak]

DENIALIST!

You mean DENTALIST!

 

[Rigby5]

Why not?

We can not easily adapt to such rapid changes because of the cost of moving so many people.
For example, the ocean levels will rise by about 250'.
About half the population lives in coastal areas that will become flooded, so they will all have to move.
Almost everyone will have to move, as fertile areas now become deserts, and deserts become swamps.

Ocean currents will change.
Melting glaciers off Greenland dump free water over the salty Gulf Stream, submerging it because fresh water is lighter.
That will reduce the temperature of Europe by about 10 degrees.
So global warming will make Europe freeze over.

Fish, bees, plants, humans, etc., will all be uprooted and have to find and adapt to new locations.
We are the lucky ones who will know what is happening and how to cope. But most of the rest of life on the planet will just die off.

 

[Rigby5]

There are two important things rarely discussed to consider when debating the causes of global warming.

1) The sun.

2) Military weather control.

Study Finds Sun May Be Leading Cause of Global Warming

A new study by nearly two dozen scientists found that rising global temperatures may be caused by the sun, rather than carbon dioxide. According to The Australian, a paper by 23 solar physics and climate science experts from 14 different cou

humanevents.com

Has China Mastered Weather Modification? Should We Worry?

Using rockets and pickup trucks, Chinese officials are seeding clouds and bringing the rain. But do they have other uses in mind?

www.bloomberg.com

Commanding and Controlling the Weather by 2025?

In April 1997, William S. Cohen , who was then the U.S. Secretary of Defense when Bill Clinton held the position of President

mysteriousuniverse.org

US Air Force Admit They Can Control the Weather

Beyond the Smoke & Mirrors

geopolitics.co

We know for sure the sun has nothing at all to do with current global warming.
We have been monitoring the sun for hundreds of years, and we know the sun has a 13 year long cycle, and we know this warming it totally out of sync with the solar cycles.

Second is that no one can control the weather, but just slightly influence it a little.
But that does us no good at all, because weather is not global, but just a local imbalance that averages out globally.
In order to fix one place to make it cooler, you end up making other places even hotter.