It's still getting hotter

[Crick]

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?

As many as we need.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As many as we need.

I want mamooth to answer.

 

[mamooth]

I want mamooth to answer.

Why, given that I've answered so many times?

Seriously, stop trolling.

 

[ding]

Why, given that I've answered so many times?

Seriously, stop trolling.

What was your answer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What was your answer?

I think her answer was, CO2 will kill us in less than 100 years,
but spent fuel is dangerous for 10,000 years, so we can't risk it.

 

[jc456]

We have seen recently in this thread postings showing trends in the occurrence of both high and low temperature records around the planet. High temperature records have been increasing in numbers while low temperature records have been decreasing. This is taking place concurrently with rising global temperatures, so it should surprise no one. But it does supply an independent verification of the data sets. Recently, we have the added tidbit of a new record set, Sunday, 21 June, for the highest average global temperature in recorded history. With the advantage of hindsight, I now know that some will not be impressed with a record within only "recorded history" when there are 4.5 billion years in which the planet had some sort of average temperature and I guess we shouldn't be all that impressed with a global average ov 17.6C when bounced against a planet covered head to toe with boiling magma. However, just FYI, for purposes of meteorology and climate science, recorded history is considered that span of time during which sufficiently accurate and sufficiently widespread data are available. All those nerds in their white coats and ivory towers came up with 1850. That is 174 years back or a span of roughly 63,510 days (they didn't give me a month, day, hour, minute, second or anything else, those stingy bastards). That goes back, my calculations indicate, further back than your parents, your grandparents or your great grandparents. And, if we are NOT getting steadily warmer, it is an exceedingly rare ocurrence. Picking one, specific, random day in 63,510 days to be the hottest ever is equivalent to throwing heads 17 times in a row. Give it a shot and then get back to me. DON'T lose count. Of course, if, as all the world's scientists tell us, the world is getting steadily hotter, the odds of last Sunday being the hottest ever is nothing to get a woody ah-boot. In fact, it's kinda unavoidable, in'nt it.

So, there's a fair number of you folks that claim to believe anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a "HOAX". "It's a LIE". Folks believe it ISN"T actually taking place. I'd like to talk to such folks. I'd really like to hear why they believe such things. I'd really like to hear a conceivable chain of events that could have produced the current temperature data record out of thin air. If anyone would like to give it a serious go, I can promise to do my very best on this occasion to withhold my usual bitter vituperation. Whether that's good enough, only time will tell.

MSN

MSN

there's still ice in the arctic and antarctic, why? psst, means ice age!!!!!!

 

[jc456]

What was your answer?

that same one, every time. She's pee wee hermaning us!

 

[Ringo]

Maybe time to stop blaming cows for the climate?

 

[mamooth]

Trolling and running, it's all the deniers have left now.

They're not even pretending they can debate the normal people. And given how badly they faceplant when they try, that's really for the best.

 

[jc456]

Trolling and running, it's all the deniers have left now.

They're not even pretending they can debate the normal people. And given how badly they faceplant when they try, that's really for the best.

project much?

 

[justoffal]

Enjoying my coal and nuclear-powered air conditioning in Chicago.

Oh ...those glorious cow farts!

 

[ding]

Trolling and running, it's all the deniers have left now.

They're not even pretending they can debate the normal people. And given how badly they faceplant when they try, that's really for the best.

Why do you reject the empirical climate evidence that shows when the northern hemisphere deglaciates the oceans and the atmosphere warm? There's 3 million years of data that shows this.

 

[Crick]

We seem to still be waiting for a climate scientist who agrees with the lot of you that global warming is a hoax.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

All of the atmospheres on the terrestrial planets in our solar system have been changing since the 2004 magnetar blast. Man is but a pinprick. To even think that we can affect a planets atmosphere is the height of arrogance. But............it really isn't about glowarm.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy,” -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official. From 2008 to 2015 he served as one of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change"

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Saturday that the global transition to a low-carbon economy requires $3 trillion in new capital each year through 2050, far above current annual financing, but that filling the gap is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century

 

[Crick]

All of the atmospheres on the terrestrial planets in our solar system have been changing since the 2004 magnetar blast.

Curious why you think it only affected the terrestrial planets. And, aside from the ionization at the initial burst, what changes can you tell us about (with a supporting link, of course)

Man is but a pinprick.

But they still hurt if one's been left on your seat.

To even think that we can affect a planets atmosphere is the height of arrogance.

Really? So humans have created no air pollution? We haven't boosted CO2 50% from 280 ppm to 420 ppm? We haven't increased methane 270% from 700 ppb to 1900 pbb today? We haven't increased the levels of nitrous oxide and the fluorinated hydrocarbons?

But............it really isn't about glowarm.

Well, your post here isn't. The planet was getting warmer from its increasing CO2 content long before 2004.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Curious why you think it only affected the terrestrial planets. And, aside from the ionization at the initial burst, what changes can you tell us about (with a supporting link, of course)

But they still hurt if one's been left on your seat.

Really? So humans have created no air pollution? We haven't boosted CO2 50% from 280 ppm to 420 ppm? We haven't increased methane 270% from 700 ppb to 1900 pbb today? We haven't increased the levels of nitrous oxide and the fluorinated hydrocarbons?

Well, your post here isn't. The planet was getting warmer from its increasing CO2 content long before 2004.

The gaseous planets usually neutralize gasses and gr bursts. We've created pollution but nothing even remotely close to affecting a planetary atmosphere. Thats preposterous and fraud science and is really quite sad. None of my professors in geology gave an ounce of credibility to glowarm simply because there wasn't data to support it. Whenever I hear someone say "settled science", I know theyre a fraud and a hack.

 

[Crick]

The gaseous planets usually neutralize gasses

Neutralize gasses? What is that supposed to mean?

and gr bursts.

Really? Do you have a reference source for that thought?

We've created pollution but nothing even remotely close to affecting a planetary atmosphere.

I think the 50% increase in CO2, the 270% increase in CH3 and increases in nitrous oxide and chloro- and fluoro-hydrocarbons have distinctly "affected" the atmosphere.

Thats preposterous and fraud science and is really quite sad.

What about mainstream climate science do you find preposterous and fraudulent?

None of my professors in geology gave an ounce of credibility to glowarm simply because there wasn't data to support it.

Do you still think there are no data to support it? And just out of curiosity, how long ago were your geology professors talking about global warming?

Whenever I hear someone say "settled science", I know theyre a fraud and a hack.

Funny, when I hear someone say that AGW is a fraud, I know they're ignorant and may be having paranoid delusions.

 

[jc456]

We seem to still be waiting for a climate scientist who agrees with the lot of you that global warming is a hoax.

actually, I've been waiting for a climate scientist who agrees with you. I gave you at least five by now. Willie Soon was the first. friends of Science the second set.

Here's a new one

MSN

It might have seemed like a fringe event, except for one speaker’s credentials. John F. Clauser shared the Nobel Prize in physics last year before declaring Tuesday that “there is no climate crisis” — a claim that contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus.

 

[jc456]

Why, given that I've answered so many times?

Seriously, stop trolling.

Well factually speaking, and as much as I can't stand the catwoman, she did respond on August 3 in this thread. Search tool is my friend.

As many as you want to invest in. Why aren't you doing that?

Being a practical person, instead of a reality-challenged denier, I know that money matters, and that you can buy vastly more capacity in renewables for the same amount of money.