CDZ Is the Climate changing?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
"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 ???
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top