Global Warming. Here's the thing.

[myself]

That silly twat is even dumber than you.

You think I'm dumber than toddster and I think you suck. So I guess that makes us even.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That human caused global warming is speeding up is something I've known for quite some time. But they did a thing on the news a few weeks ago where they showed one scientist who said the same thing.

I saw something on the news where they said you're a moon.

 

[myself]

The root cause of global warming, destruction of habitat for wildlife, air pollutions, water pollution, etc is man. There are just too many. However, global warming may take care of the problem. I think it's very unlike there will be enough done to have any real effect on global warming. As the oceans, we will deal with the flooding and lost of our coastlines. As temperatures rise we will migrate to cooler areas. As crops fail, we develop other food sources. As hurricane become larger and more intense, we will build higher levies and stronger structures. All of this activity will of course just increase greenhouse gases.

Thinking people and nations are going work together to solve the problem is just fantasy.

There is a root cause to the root cause you mentioned. The thing is, I'm not allowed to discuss it. And there are solutions. Though I'm not allowed to discuss them either. The reason being is that this and most other forums are part of the problem.

 

[myself]

I saw something on the news where they said you're a moon.

You said moon. You were in fact going for moron weren't you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said moon. You were in fact going for moron weren't you?

You're also a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You think I'm dumber than toddster and I think you suck. So I guess that makes us even.

No, silly twat, you're dumber than ding.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Did Pascal make some sort of similar argument about something. What I said didn't come from him. That was pure me. And your denial of human caused global warming is an un-scientific cult.

Nature Is Not Supernatural

The origin of your resentful attitude towards economic progress is a primitive, mindless, and passive faith that nature is beneficial. Therefore, anything that changes the way nature acts on us is harmful. But nature wasn't designed for our benefit. It is, in fact, a crime against humanity. It would exterminate us if it had its way, which your cult wants. Greenheads are blocking our way and must be forcibly removed if we are ever to get back on track towards our destiny to dominate this planet instead of being subjected to its disasters and diseases.

The idea that auto emissions are harmful to us is based on the false assumption that natural air is healthy and anything modern that is different in it, based on a few superior minds' inventions. is unhealthy. Nature worship is a superstition based on a childish fear of change. The whole foundation of your faith is toxic; everything based on that religious reverence for nature is anti-scientific at its core.

It is the duty of scientists to change nature for man's benefit and even pleasure. Nature must be fought, conquered, manipulated, and transformed in every way possible. There are so many possibilities to do that, if we weren't inhibited by the superstitions and jealousies of inferior minds, that our destiny would be within easy reach if we had the will and courage to stand up to toxic authoritarian negativists. We cannot let them spin us into a whirlpool draining into a sewer.

 

[myself]

You're also a moron.

In your opinion. And you still suck in my opinion.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

There is a root cause to the root cause you mentioned. The thing is, I'm not allowed to discuss it. And there are solutions. Though I'm not allowed to discuss them either. The reason being is that this and most other forums are part of the problem.

Trustfundie Treehuggers

Don't be cryptic. The root cause of this alarmist plot is a reversion to a primitive mindset, which was forced on us by a decadent hereditary ruling class for its own benefit and safety.

 

[myself]

Nature Is Not Supernatural

The origin of your resentful attitude towards economic progress is a primitive, mindless, and passive faith that nature is beneficial. Therefore, anything that changes the way nature acts on us is harmful. But nature wasn't designed for our benefit. It is, in fact, a crime against humanity. It would exterminate us if it had its way, which your cult wants. Greenheads are blocking our way and must be forcibly removed if we are ever to get back on track towards our destiny to dominate this planet instead of being subjected to its disasters and diseases.

The idea that auto emissions are harmful to us is based on the false assumption that natural air is healthy and anything modern that is different in it, based on a few superior minds' inventions. is unhealthy. Nature worship is a superstition based on a childish fear of change. The whole foundation of your faith is toxic; everything based on that religious reverence for nature is anti-scientific at its core.

It is the duty of scientists to change nature for man's benefit and even pleasure. Nature must be fought, conquered, manipulated, and transformed in every way possible. There are so many possibilities to do that, if we weren't inhibited by the superstitions and jealousies of inferior minds, that our destiny is within easy reach if we had the will and courage to stand up to toxic authoritarian negativists.

You are delusional. I'm surprised I don't hear from you more often. So where does the talk of the supernatural come from. Here is another point for you to ponder besides what you quoted. It is the earth's environment that created us. For that reason alone, it would be the utmost in EVIL for us to destroy it.

 

[myself]

Trustfundie Treehuggers

Don't be cryptic. The root cause of this alarmist plot is a reversion to a primitive mindset, which was forced on us by a decadent hereditary ruling class for its own benefit and safety.

I'm not being cryptic. I'm stating facts. And to refer to human caused global warming as an alarmist plot is just sheer stupidity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In your opinion. And you still suck in my opinion.

Your low IQ is an objective fact.

 

[myself]

Your low IQ is an objective fact.

Why don't you stop being stupid and get back to what you're good at. Helping destroy the planet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you stop being stupid and get back to what you're good at. Helping destroy the planet.

Putting another tire on the barbie!

 

[Rye Catcher]

CO2 does not drive climate change.

Thank you so much, I appreciate reading something so substantive from someone like you with your years doing research in climate science. It's Dr. Fraud, isn't it? Is ding your nom de plume?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I see democrats concerned about global warming and other pollution. I see republicans who couldn't care less about the environment as long as they can drive big diesel trucks. That doesn't argue well for the right side of the political spectrum.

How’s 15,000 people crammed under a bridge with no facilities helping the environment?
Or is Joe’s border crisis Trumps fault too?

 

[ding]

That human caused global warming is speeding up is something I've known for quite some time. But they did a thing on the news a few weeks ago where they showed one scientist who said the same thing.

We are in an interglacial cycle. It's been warming for 20,000 years.

 

[ding]

Thank you so much, I appreciate reading something so substantive from someone like you with your years doing research in climate science. It's Dr. Fraud, isn't it? Is ding your nom de plume?

Your welcome.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. CO2 would correlate with temperature and sea level. Post industrial revolution CO2 correlates with emissions but not temperature and sea level.

It seems their case for CO2 driving climate change is based upon the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that temperatures have been rising. The problem is that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, the rate of sea level rise has not changed and temperatures are still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacials. So it would be expected for temperatures to rise as we have not yet completed the interglacial cycle.

They will argue that the rate temperatures are rising is unprecedented. Unfortunately that's not true. 25 D-O events during the last glacial cycle show that temperatures rose from glacial temperatures to interglacial temperatures - 5C swings up and down - over the course of a few decades. That's even on NASA's website.

Here's what's really happening... we entered an ice age 2.7 million years ago. You can see the slope change on the oxygen isotope curve which is the well established proxy for temperatures. No one disputes the curve. The drivers were a gradually cooling of the planet coupled with the polar regions being isolated from warm marine currents; the south pole has a continent parked on top of it and the north pole has a mostly landlocked ocean on top of it. Also the rise of the Himalayas and the Panama isthmus. All these things changed the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and the ocean, but the biggest driver was both polar regions being isolated from the warmer marine currents.

But the glaciation threshold is different for each pole. Because the south pole has a continent parked on top of it, the southern hemisphere has a lower threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does because the north pole has an ocean parked over it. It is this difference which created increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. It is the northern hemisphere which dominates the climate of the earth. The coolest average temperatures occurs when the northern hemisphere is in winter and the warmest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere is in summer. Again... that's even on NASA's website.

You can see from ice cores during the last glacial cycle how much more erratic temperatures were in the northern hemisphere. By the way these are the D-O events from the Greenland ice cores. My point is that it is not unusual for there to be large temperature swings because that is the signature of the present ice age. We live in a period of bipolar glaciation. Never before has the earth been configured for bipolar glaciation. It is because we have bipolar glaciation where the poles do not have the same glaciation threshold that has led to increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. They have mistakenly correlated a period of warming and associated it with an increase from a minor greenhouse gas.

Here's the oxygen isotope curve.

Here is a zoomed in view of the oxygen isotope curve showing the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which clearly shows the increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of the earth's climate.

And here is the climate data from the southern and northern hemisphere ice cores for the last glacial period where you can clearly see how much more erratic the climate of the northern hemisphere was compared to the southern hemisphere.

Pass it on.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Your welcome.

Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. CO2 would correlate with temperature and sea level. Post industrial revolution CO2 correlates with emissions but not temperature and sea level.

It seems their case for CO2 driving climate change is based upon the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that temperatures have been rising. The problem is that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, the rate of sea level rise has not changed and temperatures are still below the peak temperatures of previous interglacials. So it would be expected for temperatures to rise as we have not yet completed the interglacial cycle.

They will argue that the rate temperatures are rising is unprecedented. Unfortunately that's not true. 25 D-O events during the last glacial cycle show that temperatures rose from glacial temperatures to interglacial temperatures - 5C swings up and down - over the course of a few decades. That's even on NASA's website.

Here's what's really happening... we entered an ice age 2.7 million years ago. You can see the slope change on the oxygen isotope curve which is the well established proxy for temperatures. No one disputes the curve. The drivers were a gradually cooling of the planet coupled with the polar regions being isolated from warm marine currents; the south pole has a continent parked on top of it and the north pole has a mostly landlocked ocean on top of it. Also the rise of the Himalayas and the Panama isthmus. All these things changed the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and the ocean, but the biggest driver was both polar regions being isolated from the warmer marine currents.

But the glaciation threshold is different for each pole. Because the south pole has a continent parked on top of it, the southern hemisphere has a lower threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does because the north pole has an ocean parked over it. It is this difference which created increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. It is the northern hemisphere which dominates the climate of the earth. The coolest average temperatures occurs when the northern hemisphere is in winter and the warmest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere is in summer. Again... that's even on NASA's website.

You can see from ice cores during the last glacial cycle how much more erratic temperatures were in the northern hemisphere. By the way these are the D-O events from the Greenland ice cores. My point is that it is not unusual for there to be large temperature swings because that is the signature of the present ice age. We live in a period of bipolar glaciation. Never before has the earth been configured for bipolar glaciation. It is because we have bipolar glaciation where the poles do not have the same glaciation threshold that has led to increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty on the earth. They have mistakenly correlated a period of warming and associated it with an increase from a minor greenhouse gas.

Here's the oxygen isotope curve.

Here is a zoomed in view of the oxygen isotope curve showing the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which clearly shows the increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty of the earth's climate.

And here is the climate data from the southern and northern hemisphere ice cores for the last glacial period where you can clearly see how much more erratic the climate of the northern hemisphere was compared to the southern hemisphere.

Pass it on.

LOL

 

[ding]

LOL

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131/pdf