CDZ Is the Climate changing?

[YoursTruly]

Is the climate changing? it's been changing since before it began.

 

[toobfreak]

Is the Climate changing?​

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: the climate has been changing for 4.4 billion years. It is now moving back to the warmer climate it was for millions of years from the colder one is has been, before it makes its next steep plummet towards the next Holocene Ice Age.

 

[YoursTruly]

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: the climate has been changing for 4.4 billion years. It is now moving back to the warmer climate it was for millions of years from the colder one is has been, before it makes its next steep plummet towards the next Holocene Ice Age.

I don't think it'll get cooler, unless the sun starts to diminish.
None the less, we'll never see it.

Can you imagine what life will be like when the earth is too hot to grow plants and food? Everyone has already moved underground. Hospitals closed. Schools closed. All the wild animals on the earths surface have all died.

 

[otto105]

if there is a hard and fast correlation between them I am unaware of it

If CO2 had a temperature, it would need to be the same everywhere. Also changing dew points and barometric pressure . Are you saying it does that?

My point is that we are not able to establish a direct leading causal effect....and never have been despite all the screaming of the AGW devotees. I work in the power generation field and have long been aware of the co2 dissolution tolerance of water and the direct link to the water temp....so I have questioned the idea of Co2 leading the way for a long time. It was the first thing that occurred to me when I started hearing about the CO2 bullshit twenty years ago.... So you're telling me that atmospheric Temp and co2 ppm are looking more and more disconnected all the time??? I would not be qualified to comment on that but I can tell you it would not surprise me at all.

JO

If CO2 lead temperature, it would need to have a temperature. As far as anyone knows, no one has what temperature 120 ppm is! Been asked and asked to crickets. So, no way CO2 can lead temperature. It lags temperature always!

Is there a scientific organization which backs your opinion on CO2? Can you provide the name of the scientific organization.

 

[otto105]

Is the Climate changing?​

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: the climate has been changing for 4.4 billion years. It is now moving back to the warmer climate it was for millions of years from the colder one is has been, before it makes its next steep plummet towards the next Holocene Ice Age.

The previous post was brought to you by a moron.

 

[otto105]

If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.

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.

Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.
The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.

So, what do you think is causing this rapid change?

And try to use science.

What "rapid change"?

A pace that allows plant life and animal life time to adapt.

We aren’t?

No.

 

[otto105]

If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.

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.

Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.
The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.

So, what do you think is causing this rapid change?

And try to use science.

What "rapid change"?

A pace that allows plant life and animal life time to adapt.

Ha ha, you didn't answer the question.

I certainty did.

You don't like the answer.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No the question was WHAT RAPID CHANGE?, your reply didn't answer it.

Your reply:

A pace that allows plant life and animal life time to adapt.

That reply doesn't address the question WHAT is rapid change?

Since you then irrationally claim that is a valid answer, I can say you have nothing.

 

[toobfreak]

I don't think it'll get cooler

I GUARANTEE YOU it will get cooler--- a LOT cooler. It's been going on for millions of years. This could be the final warming before the BIG COOL OFF.

Can you imagine what life will be like when the earth is too hot to grow plants

No. Plants have lived on land for 430 million years, and in the ocean for nearly 2 billion years, many of those times much, MUCH hotter.

 

[Sunsettommy]

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: the climate has been changing for 4.4 billion years. It is now moving back to the warmer climate it was for millions of years from the colder one is has been, before it makes its next steep plummet towards the next Holocene Ice Age.

I don't think it'll get cooler, unless the sun starts to diminish.
None the less, we'll never see it.

Can you imagine what life will be like when the earth is too hot to grow plants and food? Everyone has already moved underground. Hospitals closed. Schools closed. All the wild animals on the earths surface have all died.

Your pessimism is irrational and funny.

It was a LOT hotter (10C) in the past and plant life exploded which helped build the Coal seams we now dig up today.

Can you imagine that cooling is coming soon which will generate real problems when it gets harder to feed everyone.....

 

[Sunsettommy]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

Nope ... don't see it ... looks to me the peaks and valleys of the saw-tooth wave are coincidence ... just like running an audio signal on a sine wave through a capacitor ... and most likely for the same reasons ...

Let's focus on 129,000 years BP ... why do you say CO2 lags temperature here? ... I have a 21" monitor and an Alvin brand architect's scale ...

I did read one of those papers ... it didn't even try to address the causation ... which is what my question was ... maybe you should read them yourself and pick the one you think explains physics, also helpful would be for you to explain your theoretical framework that you base your claims on ... phaw ... who am I kidding ... if Miss Joanne doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect, then why should we ...

Quite frankly, I see no correlation at all from 130,000 to 100,000 ... cheanges in temperature and carbon dioxide appear completely independent of each other ... go ahead, call me old ...

You just made it clear that you will ignore the published papers, while you didn't actually address their potential errors either.

You haven't countered anything.

The Chronicles of Narnia are also "Published".....

Just as I stated, you have nothing to counter the published papers with, NOTHING!

Narnia Chronicles are fiction, totally make believe stories..... it is a FANTASY!

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[toobfreak]

Is the Climate changing?​

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: the climate has been changing for 4.4 billion years. It is now moving back to the warmer climate it was for millions of years from the colder one is has been, before it makes its next steep plummet towards the next Holocene Ice Age.

The previous post was brought to you by a moron.

You shouldn't lie, Otto. You had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the previous post.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.

JO

Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.

From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer

Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.

First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...

Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.

Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...

Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.

Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor

It makes more sense.....

Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....

[De-emphasis mine]

It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...

The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...

What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...

This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.

Jo Nova

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

REFERENCES​

• Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
• Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
• Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
• Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
• Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
• NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:

  Paleo Data Search | Predefined Searches: Location | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

  XXXXXX

  www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...

Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...

We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...

C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...

=====

WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...

You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?

Very obvious examples,

View attachment 508699

View attachment 508700

I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.

Go read the published papers!

Nope ... don't see it ... looks to me the peaks and valleys of the saw-tooth wave are coincidence ... just like running an audio signal on a sine wave through a capacitor ... and most likely for the same reasons ...

Let's focus on 129,000 years BP ... why do you say CO2 lags temperature here? ... I have a 21" monitor and an Alvin brand architect's scale ...

I did read one of those papers ... it didn't even try to address the causation ... which is what my question was ... maybe you should read them yourself and pick the one you think explains physics, also helpful would be for you to explain your theoretical framework that you base your claims on ... phaw ... who am I kidding ... if Miss Joanne doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect, then why should we ...

Quite frankly, I see no correlation at all from 130,000 to 100,000 ... cheanges in temperature and carbon dioxide appear completely independent of each other ... go ahead, call me old ...

You just made it clear that you will ignore the published papers, while you didn't actually address their potential errors either.

You haven't countered anything.

There's nothing to counter ... the one paper I did read is just statistical gymnastics ... you claim temperature goes up first ... why? ... you say CO2 follows ... why? ...

I asked specifically about 129,000 years BP ... no answer ... that's an answer in of itself ... go ahead ... show us on Miss Joanne's chart for children where the physical processes occur ... Zuza showed more flesh, just saying ...

 

[Wyatt earp]

If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.

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.

Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.
The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.

So, what do you think is causing this rapid change?

And try to use science.

What "rapid change"?

A pace that allows plant life and animal life time to adapt.

What should the Earth's temperature be ?

 

[YoursTruly]

 

[YoursTruly]

What should the Earth's temperature be ?

It's gonna be what it's gonna be. Nothing we can really do about it. Try to watch out pollution best we can. New technology will come along. I just hope it's not forced upon us as in taxing us or forcing us to give up too much in too short of time.
But I'm sure there's things about our world that we don't even know. As in the effects of certain things. Fact is, all this pollution we put into the air, may actually be a good thing. No one knows the long term effects. of our actions today, because we don't know the long term effects of natural climate change.
You see what I mean?
As in we know 2 + 2 is 4. But what if we're supposed to be adding 2.25 + 2.25? <<<Example

 

[YoursTruly]

The previous post was brought to you by a moron.

You enjoy being obnoxious, don't you?

 

[otto105]

Is the Climate changing?​

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: the climate has been changing for 4.4 billion years. It is now moving back to the warmer climate it was for millions of years from the colder one is has been, before it makes its next steep plummet towards the next Holocene Ice Age.

The previous post was brought to you by a moron.

You shouldn't lie, Otto. You had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the previous post.

Sure, moron.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Is the Climate changing?​

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: the climate has been changing for 4.4 billion years. It is now moving back to the warmer climate it was for millions of years from the colder one is has been, before it makes its next steep plummet towards the next Holocene Ice Age.

The previous post was brought to you by a moron.

So you calling scientific facts a moron?

Betcha you think the earth is flat

 

[Wyatt earp]

Is the Climate changing?​

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: the climate has been changing for 4.4 billion years. It is now moving back to the warmer climate it was for millions of years from the colder one is has been, before it makes its next steep plummet towards the next Holocene Ice Age.

The previous post was brought to you by a moron.

You shouldn't lie, Otto. You had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the previous post.

Sure, moron.

Fucking childish troll