What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Is the Climate changing?

Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
11,273
Reaction score
2,015
Points
170
Location
All in your mind
The dust bowl was a product of "climate change" and many a huckster saw the monetary value in it.
Weakling Liberals Fear Muscle Cars

Common sense, but not Commie Science, would allow us to realize that auto emissions thicken the air. That slows down the wind. Because of poverty and unemployment caused by the Depression, the emissions were lowered. That caused the Dust Bowl.
 

flan327

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2021
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
749
Points
98
Weakling Liberals Fear Muscle Cars

Common sense, but not Commie Science, would allow us to realize that auto emissions thicken the air. That slows down the wind. Because of poverty and unemployment caused by the Depression, the emissions were lowered. That caused the Dust Bowl.
I’m not afraid of any CAR
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
3,300
Reaction score
1,906
Points
938
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
Please TN, this is the Clean Debate Zone, we're supposed to avoid insults here. In any case, I agree that the climate has been changing since time began. The topic I'd like to address in this thread is the rate of change these days and what's causing it.
Your OP~Opening Post didn't present any of this regarding rate of change and cause.
Moving goalposts with a bit of CYA it seems.
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
3,300
Reaction score
1,906
Points
938
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
There is an overwhelming consensus of climatologists globally. Ideologues invariable cite the few dissenters, often inaccurately.
Consensus isn't science.
Consensus was against Galileo, sticking with the Earth centric view of the Cosmos at that time rather than the data based observation of the Sun at the center of the Solar System.
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
3,300
Reaction score
1,906
Points
938
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
globalTempAndCo2_last600MillionYears.png

OR
iu

OR
iu

OR
iu

OR
iu

.......
Point is, when viewed on scale of past hundreds of millions of years, blips of past century or two are not significant variations to historical trends.
 

schmidlap

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
7,001
Reaction score
4,534
Points
928
Consensus isn't science.
Consensus was against Galileo, sticking with the Earth centric view of the Cosmos at that time rather than the data based observation of the Sun at the center of the Solar System.
Science is continuously self-correcting, and consensus achieved via the ongoing accumulation and analysis of data. Thus, the scientific consensuses concerning both a heliocentric planetary system and anthropogenic climate change.

Were their ass-draggers who refused to accept these advances in science? Obviously. There still are.

Dogma is not science.

Consider biological evolution and the vehement resistance to Darwin's revolutionary, data-based, advance by conservative Soapy Sam Wilberforce and others with an ideological agenda.

Science eventually prevails.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
11,273
Reaction score
2,015
Points
170
Location
All in your mind
Consensus isn't science.
Consensus was against Galileo, sticking with the Earth centric view of the Cosmos at that time rather than the data based observation of the Sun at the center of the Solar System.
Climatologists Don't Have the IQ for the Hard Sciences

Consensus comes from a mind-paralyzed conformist clique of academic eunuchs.
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
48,024
Reaction score
12,482
Points
2,180
You sound like an ideologue.

If you want to deny that accelerated sea level rise is not a consequence of anthropological climate change, the data refutes you.


I dont deny that. If you read my posts, you'd know that what I (and highly respected scientists) say is that the QUANTITY of sea level rise involved, is just not enough to merit the response by climate alarmists. Looks like a scam to push a political agenda. Ho hum.

Would it be enough to swamp Obama's new $12 Millon Martha's Vineyard mansion ? If it was, he wouldn't have bought it, would he ?
 

schmidlap

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
7,001
Reaction score
4,534
Points
928
I dont deny that. If you read my posts, you'd know that what I (and highly respected scientists) say is that the QUANTITY of sea level rise involved, is just not enough to merit the response by climate alarmists. Looks like a scam to push a political agenda. Ho hum.

Would it be enough to swamp Obama's new $12 Millon Martha's Vineyard mansion ? If it was, he wouldn't have bought it, would he ?
It just looks as if the vast preponderance of the global community, informed by the latest climatological data, will acknowledge the reality and struggle to react responsibly. A residue of ideologues (They can be exposed by their stances on a number of ideological issues) driven by politics rather than science, will differ.
 

alexa

Silver Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
1,795
Reaction score
384
Points
98
Location
Scotland
It is now thought that we will go up by 2 or 3 degrees this century. According to the climatologist I saw last night that would be outside the maximum change there has been before. He said it is always no more than 2 degrees either way. That is a change of 2 degrees down results in ice ages and two degrees up well we just need to wait and see what we will be leaving our grandchildren. I thought people were getting things together this year in full knowledge of the dangerous situation we are in but not a bit of it. Instead we are in a World War headed for a nuclear one. Whoever called humans wise was an idiot.
 

protectionist

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
48,024
Reaction score
12,482
Points
2,180
It just looks as if the vast preponderance of the global community, informed by the latest climatological data, will acknowledge the reality and struggle to react responsibly. A residue of ideologues (They can be exposed by their stances on a number of ideological issues) driven by politics rather than science, will differ.
"Preponderance" doesn't present squat. Look at all the monkey see monkey doers who believed Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd, when that absolutely was not true. It went all around the world, DUPES in 5 continents yammering falsely about it.

What matters is the climate alarmists just don't have a case to say that fossil fuel production should be curtailed. The numbers just don't add up to that. These alarmists are the idealogues, who use global warming as a weapon, to wage war against the oil/gas industry, and none more in the forefront of it, than Joe (brains falling out of his head) Biden.
 

schmidlap

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
7,001
Reaction score
4,534
Points
928
Look at all the monkey see monkey doers who believed Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd, when that absolutely was not true.
You only underscore that those in denial of science are ideologues who harbor consistently aberrant notions.
 

usmcstinger

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
454
Points
200
I do.



I believe that too. Others don't, which is why not everyone agrees about climate change.



I believe it does.



Yes.
Climate Change was created by the left wing wackos.
 

Captain Caveman

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Messages
4,175
Reaction score
2,184
Points
938
Location
England
Climate Change was created by the left wing wackos.
When the earthed was formed, there hasn't been a day where the climate has never changed, and it will continue to do so. It's just that Left Wing wackos believe we can control this process because they don't like 250 years of the earth's climate history.
 

Friends

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
1,872
Reaction score
424
Points
130
There are three reasons I believe in human caused global warming. First, during my life time I have noticed milder winters and hotter summers. Last summer was the hottest summer I ever experienced. This summer seems like it will be at least as hot. Last winter there was hardly any snow where I live.

Second, I believe that on most issues the consensus of experts is more likely to be right than mistaken. The consensus of climatologists is that global warming is happening, and that it is a serious problem.

Third, I understand the science. During the age of dinosaurs the climate on earth was much warmer. Sea levels were higher. Tropical plants grew closer to the north pole and the south pole. Over time plants took carbon out of the atmosphere and put it in the plants. When these plants died, many became coal, petroleum, and natural gas. The climate cooled. By consuming fossil fuels we are reversing a process that took hundreds of millions of years in a few centuries.

I have one reflection that to an extent counters the previous paragraph. As the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere declined there were ice ages. Much of Europe and North America was under ice. It may be that by consuming fossil fuels we are preventing another ice age.
 

Friends

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
1,872
Reaction score
424
Points
130
globalTempAndCo2_last600MillionYears.png

OR
iu

OR
iu

OR
iu

OR
iu

.......
Point is, when viewed on scale of past hundreds of millions of years, blips of past century or two are not significant variations to historical trends.
I see a few names here, but I do not see credible sources of data. Who are those presumed experts? How do they know what the carbon dioxide content of the earth was millions of years ago? What is their connection to the fossil fuel industry?
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
3,300
Reaction score
1,906
Points
938
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
"But ancient Antarctica wasn’t just warm. It was a forested."

Yes ... like I said ... Antarctica was located in the temperate latitudes 92 million years ago ... of course we'll find evidence of forests ... and this includes the seabed around Antarctica ... which moved with Antarctica to her current position centered on the South Pole ≈ 27 million years ago ...

"The team described its findings April 2 in Nature."

What the hell ... there doesn't appear to be an issue of Nature for April 2nd ... and there's no article in any issue of Nature concerning this according to their website {Cite "[Nature] Articles for 2021"} ...

I don't know where you found this information ... but you are responsible to check the citations ... and this citation is clearly bogus ... does not exist ...

That's not how we debate physics ...
At the bottom of the link in post #19 we find this;
...

Citations​


Journal: J.P. Klages et al. Temperate rainforests near the South Pole during peak Cretaceous warmth. Nature. Vol. 580, April 2, 2020, p. 81. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2148-5.
...
This is a click link (underlined);
Temperate rainforests near the South Pole during peak Cretaceous warmth.

And it takes to here;

Temperate rainforests near the South Pole during peak Cretaceous warmth​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So where and how were you looking ???
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top