Global warming is natural

[easyt65]

Nobody's saying we should do any of that.

But the Klimate Kult is insisting we destroy Western economies to maybe...MAYBE...save the planet. And we only have 12 years to do it. Down to 9, now.

Bear in mind none of the Kult's prophecies have ever come true. That doesn't matter! We should do exactly what these people say! Or we're all gonna die!

I like the part where Al Gore said all of our coastal cities were going to be under water years ago because of melting icebergs / par caps...

 

[easyt65]

Global Warming was debunked so thoroughly they had to change the name to Climate Change.

I totally believe in that ... happens 4 times a year here - every spring, summer. fall, & winter.

 

[daveman]

cherry picker

Yes, they are. Did you know out of all the temperature stations above the Arctic Circle, they picked the one in the warmest area to represent all of Canada above the Arctic Circle?

Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming. Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada. Worse, only one station — at Eureka on Ellesmere Island — is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada. Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”

How dishonest is that?

 

[daveman]

I like the part where Al Gore said all of our coastal cities were going to be under water years ago because of melting icebergs / par caps...

Do NOT mock the Goracle!

 

[WEATHER53]

Finally starting to look into deep undersea volcanic. Warm the water bottom up. Research quietly done. Huge earthquake before Christmas 10 years ago gets talked about. Can’t say more

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, they are. Did you know out of all the temperature stations above the Arctic Circle, they picked the one in the warmest area to represent all of Canada above the Arctic Circle?



How dishonest is that?

You’re an idiot not a scientist. Remember this

 

[daveman]

You’re an idiot not a scientist. Remember this

You Klimate Kultists sure do get angry when someone questions your dogma.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Yeah, it's not like the swings in climate were caused by humans so we should not worry when the rain stops falling from the sky. We can blame a political party or a president.
In other words dump oil in yer yard, burn those tires and shit everywhere because it just don't matter, we all gonna die anyway.

You just described common liberally run cities.

 

[daveman]

You just described common liberally run cities.

 

[sealybobo]

You Klimate Kultists sure do get angry when someone questions your dogma.

Don’t worry. The world knows it’s real even though corporations pay republicans to convince you it’s a hoax.

 

[daveman]

Don’t worry. The world knows it’s real even though corporations pay republicans to convince you it’s a hoax.

Have you ever noticed that every "solution" to climate change is world socialism?

No. You haven't.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 622600

It's been with us for thousands of years.

The author in the attached link has evidence to that effect...

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/new-extinction-theory.447781/#post-12484157

So why worry?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Sure global warming and cooling is a natural 110,000 year long cycles that has been going on for over a dozen cycles in the last couple million years.

However, the CURRENT global warming is totally and completely UNNATURAL and is compounding a double warming by starting a new warming before the previous one was even completely over yet.

We have compressed the natural warming and cooling cycle of 110,000 years, down to about 200 years.
We are risking species extinction, because we are melting frozen methane hydrate that risks causing a runaway positive feedback loop that could cause a deadly 10 degree planetary warming.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 652513

Detroit was destroyed by car makers outsourcing offshore, like GM went to Mexico.

 

[Rigby5]

Have you ever noticed that every "solution" to climate change is world socialism?

No. You haven't.

While I would like to see more socialism, world, federal, state, and municipal, no one has suggested any socialism.
The main thing they have pushed is reducing auto emissions, and that is not socialism.
I think they should make subsidized high speed trains instead, and that would be socialism.

 

[Rigby5]

You Klimate Kultists sure do get angry when someone questions your dogma.

I have a degree in physics, so I can explain global warming.
The sun is constantly bombarding the earth with massive amounts of solar energy.
But the problem is that when it hits the earth, it is absorbed as heat and builds up, moving around inside the atmosphere, by conduction and convection.
What determines how much heat builds up depend on the outer layer of the atmosphere.
That boundary layer is extremely important because no heat can escape to space because there can be no conduction or convection to the vacuum of space.
It can only leave by returning to the form of photonic radiation.

And the problem is that carbon prevents photonic radiation, but changes it back in to vibratory heat again, so it is trapped.
So the amount of carbon at the outer atmosphere boundary layer to space, is what determines planetary heat retention or not.

There is no question that we have increased atmospheric carbon, through CO2, by almost 40%.

Since the scale starts at 200 ppm, because is has never been lower than 200, the graph looks like it almost tripled.
But I don't want to try to give that false impression. The increase from 250 to 400 is not triple but is almost double.
So that means we are not just retaining more heat, but it is accumulative, and we are also constantly increasing the carbon as well.
So even if we stopped increasing CO2 today, the increase of heat accumulation would continue for hundreds of years to come, possibly making the planet unlivable.
This has never happened before, so it is hard to predict.

How could this happen?
Because fossil fuel is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy.
We release tens of millions of years worth of sequestered fossil sunlight every year that we burn as much fossil fuel as we are burning.

Does that make it easier to understand why smart people are worried?
Let me know if there is more you want me to detail?

 

[daveman]

Detroit was destroyed by car makers outsourcing offshore, like GM went to Mexico.

Yes, but you're a Commie, so perhaps you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[daveman]

While I would like to see more socialism, world, federal, state, and municipal, no one has suggested any socialism.
The main thing they have pushed is reducing auto emissions, and that is not socialism.
I think they should make subsidized high speed trains instead, and that would be socialism.

No one?

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”​

You should just stop.

 

[daveman]

I have a degree in physics, so I can explain global warming.
The sun is constantly bombarding the earth with massive amounts of solar energy.
But the problem is that when it hits the earth, it is absorbed as heat and builds up, moving around inside the atmosphere, by conduction and convection.
What determines how much heat builds up depend on the outer layer of the atmosphere.
That boundary layer is extremely important because no heat can escape to space because there can be no conduction or convection to the vacuum of space.
It can only leave by returning to the form of photonic radiation.

And the problem is that carbon prevents photonic radiation, but changes it back in to vibratory heat again, so it is trapped.
So the amount of carbon at the outer atmosphere boundary layer to space, is what determines planetary heat retention or not.

There is no question that we have increased atmospheric carbon, through CO2, by almost 40%.

Since the scale starts at 200 ppm, because is has never been lower than 200, the graph looks like it almost tripled.
But I don't want to try to give that false impression. The increase from 250 to 400 is not triple but is almost double.
So that means we are not just retaining more heat, but it is accumulative, and we are also constantly increasing the carbon as well.
So even if we stopped increasing CO2 today, the increase of heat accumulation would continue for hundreds of years to come, possibly making the planet unlivable.
This has never happened before, so it is hard to predict.

How could this happen?
Because fossil fuel is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy.
We release tens of millions of years worth of sequestered fossil sunlight every year that we burn as much fossil fuel as we are burning.

Does that make it easier to understand why smart people are worried?
Let me know if there is more you want me to detail?

Read all that before. It's still not compelling.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I have a degree in physics, so I can explain global warming.
The sun is constantly bombarding the earth with massive amounts of solar energy.
But the problem is that when it hits the earth, it is absorbed as heat and builds up, moving around inside the atmosphere, by conduction and convection.
What determines how much heat builds up depend on the outer layer of the atmosphere.
That boundary layer is extremely important because no heat can escape to space because there can be no conduction or convection to the vacuum of space.
It can only leave by returning to the form of photonic radiation.

And the problem is that carbon prevents photonic radiation, but changes it back in to vibratory heat again, so it is trapped.
So the amount of carbon at the outer atmosphere boundary layer to space, is what determines planetary heat retention or not.

There is no question that we have increased atmospheric carbon, through CO2, by almost 40%.

Since the scale starts at 200 ppm, because is has never been lower than 200, the graph looks like it almost tripled.
But I don't want to try to give that false impression. The increase from 250 to 400 is not triple but is almost double.
So that means we are not just retaining more heat, but it is accumulative, and we are also constantly increasing the carbon as well.
So even if we stopped increasing CO2 today, the increase of heat accumulation would continue for hundreds of years to come, possibly making the planet unlivable.
This has never happened before, so it is hard to predict.

How could this happen?
Because fossil fuel is hundreds of millions of years worth of concentrated solar energy.
We release tens of millions of years worth of sequestered fossil sunlight every year that we burn as much fossil fuel as we are burning.

Does that make it easier to understand why smart people are worried?
Let me know if there is more you want me to detail?

A greenhouse has a solid roof; the carbon molecules aren't solid, they're not even a cloud. So it is typically dishonest of the Unabomber Cult to use the Greenhouse Analogy.

Second, if the imaginary Greenhouse's gases really could keep the heat in, they would also prevent the sun's rays from ever getting into our atmosphere.

This "photonic radiation" you came up with sounds like a drama's deus ex machina thrown in to save an illogical narrative.

 

[WEATHER53]

The doubling or tripling of what’s emitted depends upon the vastness of what it’s being emitted into. We are 95% undeveloped and 70% water or ice.