For the last Time, "skeptics," the SUN is NOT the cause of climate change, and "solar cycle" was put out by the fraud

[EMH]

anyone can claim fudged data

That is not a claim, that is a DOCUMENTATION via NBC...

They're credible.

You are not an authority on that subject at all. You are a PARROT. You do not observe what NOAA does with data.

If there was ocean warming, there WOULD BE A BREAKOUT IN CANES. There is NOT.

 

[ReinyDays]

No disagreement. I think we agree on the potential impacts and we probably agree that human activity is causing climate change, but the sun isn't to blame. It's us. Period.

I can disagree with you then ... how are we justifing all this great change for so little actual CO2 being released ... as measured by mass ... a few ppm doesn't add up to very much ...

Why a large change in temperature for a tiny amount of carbon ... 100's of ppm are ten thousandths ... 0.015% is small ...

 

[multivita-man]

I can disagree with you then ... how are we justifing all this great change for so little actual CO2 being released ... as measured by mass ... a few ppm doesn't add up to very much ...

Why a large change in temperature for a tiny amount of carbon ... 100's of ppm are ten thousandths ... 0.015% is small ...

Well it's not *just* carbon; methane and other gases have also increased. But speaking of carbon, atmospheric carbon has increased by about 37% since 1950, or 15% since 2000. That's a significant increase.

Methane? It's up 59% since 1950. Methane is a far more potent GHG than carbon even. It is increasing faster because it is likely causing feedbacks in which more heat releases more methane that's already trapped in ice. The loss of polar ice is bad enough, but the methane that gets released from that rapid ice loss is going to amplify warming. The 2C scenarios that IPCC is talking about? That is very, very, very optimistic. We are likely looking at a world of 4C by 2100 - and possibly 6 or 7C.

Our world is somewhere in between. Somewhere between 2C within the next 10 years and 4-7C some 77 years from now. We're not even thinking about how to adapt to that world. We're still trying to switch to EVs, wind farms, geothermal, ocean waves, and other bullshit with the belief that it's going to allow the same growth that our fossil fuel world has.

 

[Next Time]

Suspecting really means shit. There is no climate science related institute in the world that goes along with bullshit.

Then why do so many "believe the science" The fearmongers like Bill Gates and his followers and governments? There is too much bullshit out there that most people lap that shit up because entities such as fact-checking sites spruik and enforce the bullshit, as one example.

 

[EMH]

atmospheric carbon has increased by about 37% since 1950, or 15% since 2000. That's a significant increase.

and it proved that increasing atmospheric Co2 did not warm JACK SHIT

Sincerely,

highly correlated satellite and balloon data

 

[EMH]

Then why do so many "believe the science" The fearmongers like Bill Gates and his followers and governments? There is too much bullshit out there that most people lap that shit up because entities such as fact-checking sites spruik and enforce the bullshit, as one example.

And all of their "predictions" are completely wrong.

Cane breakout = nope

Ocean rise = nope

Ice free Arctic = nope


Eventually, as year after year passes, and Earth does not warm, people do notice... but only the ones not ADDICTED TO PARROTING BULLSHIT

 

[Dagosa]

Then why do so many "believe the science" The fearmongers like Bill Gates and his followers and governments? There is too much bullshit out there that most people lap that shit up because entities such as fact-checking sites spruik and enforce the bullshit, as one example.

Oh you don’t trust them for climate science but you do trust them for Medicare. bullshit..
Deniers can’t answer this one question. If you go to Johns Hopkins or Mass General or Cornel for truthful science information in a cancer treatment, why do deniers think those same trusted people aren’t to be trusted over made up shit from conservative rags on climate change. Geesus, you don’t go to Fix News for medical science

 

[Dagosa]

Then why do so many "believe the science" The fearmongers like Bill Gates and his followers and governments? There is too much bullshit out there that most people lap that shit up because entities such as fact-checking sites spruik and enforce the bullshit, as one example.

You can’t come up with any can you,?

 

[ReinyDays]

Well it's not *just* carbon; methane and other gases have also increased. But speaking of carbon, atmospheric carbon has increased by about 37% since 1950, or 15% since 2000. That's a significant increase.

Why is it significant? ... 37% of nothing is still nothing ... the increase is 150 ppm ... that's not intuitively significant, not without a reason ...

Methane? It's up 59% since 1950. Methane is a far more potent GHG than carbon even. It is increasing faster because it is likely causing feedbacks in which more heat releases more methane that's already trapped in ice. The loss of polar ice is bad enough, but the methane that gets released from that rapid ice loss is going to amplify warming. The 2C scenarios that IPCC is talking about? That is very, very, very optimistic. We are likely looking at a world of 4C by 2100 - and possibly 6 or 7C.

Why is the RCP4.5 scenario "optimistic"? ... do you think the RCP8.5 is even possible? ... what is it about carbon that would cause such a large shift in equilibrium? ...

Our world is somewhere in between. Somewhere between 2C within the next 10 years and 4-7C some 77 years from now. We're not even thinking about how to adapt to that world. We're still trying to switch to EVs, wind farms, geothermal, ocean waves, and other bullshit with the belief that it's going to allow the same growth that our fossil fuel world has.

Temperatures were 4ºC higher than today during the Agricultural Revolution ... why was that beneficial, but 2ºC today is detrimental? ...

From IPCC herself [AR5 1WC Fig 12-4]:

 

[multivita-man]

and it proved that increasing atmospheric Co2 did not warm JACK SHIT

Sincerely,

highly correlated satellite and balloon data

You would be wrong. I already showed my work.

 

[multivita-man]

Temperatures were 4ºC higher than today during the Agricultural Revolution ... why was that beneficial, but 2ºC today is detrimental? ...

I think you posted something similar 1-2 nights ago and already disputed this. Global mean temperatures were not 4C higher during the agricultural revolution; we were coming out of an ice age. Much of Europe wasn't *easily habitable* until about 15,000 years ago, so there's just no ******* way that's correct.

Yes there were Neanderthals and some Cro-Magnons but life was hard in much of Continental Europe because it was friggin cold.

 

[multivita-man]

And all of their "predictions" are completely wrong.

Cane breakout = nope

Ocean rise = nope

Ice free Arctic = nope


Eventually, as year after year passes, and Earth does not warm, people do notice... but only the ones not ADDICTED TO PARROTING BULLSHIT

Far from it. Pretty accurate.

Predicting that some glacier is going to be gone in 11 years? Yeah, maybe not the best prediction. But general climate predictions have been pretty accurate.

 

[EMH]

You would be wrong. I already showed my work.

 

[EMH]

Far from it. Pretty accurate.

Predicting that some glacier is going to be gone in 11 years? Yeah, maybe not the best prediction. But general climate predictions have been pretty accurate.

Which ones?

Canes breaking out? NOPE

Ocean rise? Laughable, since you cannot show one single photo of a landmark sinking, and the recent debate over Norfolk Naval Base demonstrates your side LIES

You cannot explain a map of the Arctic.

You cannot explain how Co2 melted North America and froze Greenland at the same time....


To hide past predictions that went fizzzzzzzz, your side bills the taxpayer for politiFACTLESS

Gore quote on an 'ice-free' Arctic is mostly right

Former Vice President Al Gore has been a vocal advocate for policies to reduce global warming, dedicating much of his po

www.politifact.com

 

[ReinyDays]

I think you posted something similar 1-2 nights ago and already disputed this. Global mean temperatures were not 4C higher during the agricultural revolution; we were coming out of an ice age. Much of Europe wasn't *easily habitable* until about 15,000 years ago, so there's just no ******* way that's correct.

Yes there were Neanderthals and some Cro-Magnons but life was hard in much of Continental Europe because it was friggin cold.

Why is carbon significant? ... 37% of nothing is still nothing ... the increase is 150 ppm ... that's not intuitively significant, not without a reason ...

 

[MarathonMike]

What is beyond debate is the Earth has gone through major climate cycles for millions of years and we are working our way through the latest climate cycle.

 

[EMH]

What is beyond debate is the Earth has gone through major climate cycles for millions of years and we are working our way through the latest climate cycle.

A "cycle" that really isn't changing much at all.

It helps to understand what causes the "cycles."

The amount of ice on Earth dictates ocean level, temperature, atmospheric thickness, and humidity = climate

Where is the ice on Earth?

LAND NEAR THE POLES

Antarctica 90%
Greenland 7%

and LAND MOVES....

Two polar oceans = Earth has no ice

 

[EMH]

Why is carbon significant? ... 37% of nothing is still nothing ... the increase is 150 ppm ... that's not intuitively significant, not without a reason ...

Co2 is also absorbing EM at the low/weak end of the spectrum, which is why it is not warming anything...

 

[multivita-man]

Canes breaking out? NOPE

Specific weather predictions aren't accurate. Inaccurate weather predictions aren't evidence against climate change.

Ocean rise? Laughable, since you cannot show one single photo of a landmark sinking, and the recent debate over Norfolk Naval Base demonstrates your side LIES

Nah, oceans are rising; I'm not in the mood to fetch the data for you, but oceans are rising for sure.

You cannot explain a map of the Arctic.

What would you like me to explain? lol

Ice hasn't always been there. In fact alligators once lived in the arctic. Ice started accumulating around (I may be off) 30-40 million years ago? After the end of the Eocene, a major cold trend started that finally ended with the last ice age...which finally allowed humanity to start populating the rest of the planet.

You cannot explain how Co2 melted North America and froze Greenland at the same time....

I disagree with your assertion. CO2 didn't free Greenland. Not sure where you're coming up with this stuff.

 

[multivita-man]

What is beyond debate is the Earth has gone through major climate cycles for millions of years and we are working our way through the latest climate cycle.

Ahh, but that's the rub, my friend. We're causing this 'climate cycle'

And climate isn't necessarily a cycle in the sense that you might think. It's more a matter of chance, fortune, randomness.