Global warming tipping points

I'm still looking for where climate changed in our lifetime to make such a nonsense comment about climate change today.
Thats just it, we do not live long enough to see the natural swings of climate. That is why they use them to stoke fear. We haven't seen them but soon we will and it's not going to be in the direction the alarmists are spewing...
 
Thats just it, we do not live long enough to see the natural swings of climate. That is why they use them to stoke fear. We haven't seen them but soon we will and it's not going to be in the direction the alarmists are spewing...
I know all that. That's why I ask them to tell us what they witnessed. I know it's nothing. It will continue to be nothing. They will continue to ignore me. It's okay. only proves my point and they don't even understand that. Thanks
 
The point is, It will change again soon and nothing man can do will stop it. We humans look at things in to short of a time span to see what normal really is. When you do look to see where the earth spends most of its time, It's frightening. Billions will not survive the next ice age.

What did the climate change from? ... continents won't be moving anytime "soon" ... and it doesn't look like the large scale convective circulation is changing ... pick a point, any point, tell us how climate is changing ...
 
What did the climate change from? ... continents won't be moving anytime "soon" ... and it doesn't look like the large scale convective circulation is changing ... pick a point, any point, tell us how climate is changing ...


EXACTLY^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
What did the climate change from? ... continents won't be moving anytime "soon" ... and it doesn't look like the large scale convective circulation is changing ... pick a point, any point, tell us how climate is changing ...
It changed from warm to cold. Then from cold to warm, multiple times. The range of change is about 12 deg C in the current state of the earth and its circulations.

CO2 and Ice Ages.JPG



No one but God lives long enough to see the swings of normal variation.
 
Last edited:
well again, ice was receding from when Chicago was under layers of ice. It has always been moving closer to the arctic. I'm still trying to understand what greenies are complaining about. Are they saying Chicago should be back under ice? it is almost every winter.

And that climate in my lifetime has always been the case. It hasn't changed. So, still waiting on where climate has recently changed.

I know they aren't water skiing in the Arctic yet. Now that would be climate change of some sorts.
I'm not the droid you are looking for, kuck.
 
Incorrect, greenie kuck troll.
I quoted you!!!! I see you're starting to get concerned. I posted what was a fact. Got a problem with it, explain what your problem is. But understand, I quoted your post.
 
I quoted you!!!! I see you're starting to get concerned. I posted what was a fact. Got a problem with it, explain what your problem is. But understand, I quoted your post.
Go troll somewhere else, kuck.
 
It changed from warm to cold. Then from cold to warm, multiple times. The range of change is about 12 deg C in the current state of the earth and its circulations.

View attachment 696167


No one but God lives long enough to see the swings of normal variation.

I've seen a 12ºC temperature change since just this morning ... was sunrise a "cold" climate and afternoon a "hot" climate, then back to a "cold" climate overnight? ... all in one day? ... are sunny days a completely different climate than cloudy days? ...

Temperature is just one parameter, what has pressure done these past half million years, how about humidity, winds, precipatation ... all the same in this time period you say? ... then climate hasn't changed, it's cold because we're heading into winter is all ... I promise it will be warm again next summer ... ask my house cat, I've never lied about that ...

I'm not saying Köppen System is any good, or the best, just that I'm basing my claim on it's workings and definitions ... "cold" is infra-type k, "the coldest month averages below 0ºC" ... "hot" is infra-type h, "the coldest month averages above 0ºC" ... clearly defined, widely published ... if this is unacceptable to you, then please state which system you're using and clearly state those definitions ... and if you don't use wind direction as your primary climate division, please state why ...

Continents are moving TEN TIMES faster than sea level is rising ... we should be more worried about Seattle crashing into Tokyo ... we can use the English Parliament Building as a boat mooring and do more good after all ... long live William V ...
 
Thank you for proving my point... You have put forth no science and no understanding of the hypothesis in general. You live on personal destruction because you are an imbecilic

I'm an "imbecilic"? That sounds like an adjective.

and are unable to understand even the basics.

I understand it a whole lot better than you do.

Those Young Creationists would have you for lunch

LOL.

as they understand the science and the hypothesis well enough to do so. They also know that the length of God's Day

So you're not YEC, you are one of those that makes up "extra" stuff in the Bible to get the Bible off the hook when it is in error.

You might want to check the order of creation on the Creation Week and then go look at when those things show up in the fossil record.



And you aren't a troll?
 
They do not understand that the earth is a buffered system due to the size of our oceans.

To some extent that is correct. Perhaps you could explain the Revelle Factor to the class, eh?

That buffer must be overwhelmed before runaway anything can be achieved. We are far from that system being overwhelmed.

But then few if any professionals think the earth will go into "runaway" greenhouse. So your point isn't really related to the topic.

Physics is not their friend. The earth is pushing off energy at the same rate as it receives it. The AGW hypothesis dies with that understanding as CO2 can only momentarily slow energy release but cannot stop its increase.

Oversimplification. Let's assume you actually DO know how AGW works. It works by steadily moving the elevation at which the IR re-radiates back into space higher and higher to areas that are lower gas concentration so less efficient at radiating the energy out.

Water vapor is not enhancing heat retention

Really? How do you figure? Water vapor is a positive feedback. It increases the climate sensitivity of CO2. And we even have great DIRECT MEASUREMENT methods to confirm this.

Everything that should prove the AGW hypothesis, denies it.

You seem to differ from the earth's experts on this. I wonder why?
 

Forum List

Back
Top