LOL.....Gore now says climate change triggering "flying rivers"!!!

[Old Rocks]

I'm really starting to think that Gore is on our side of things!!!

Every time he opens his mouth, skeptics win!!!

Gore travels to Dubai, warns: ‘Global warming’ triggering ‘flying rivers, rain bombs’

Except they are real. Dam that science, contradicting ideology with fact.

Learn more about these rivers in the sky.

Yeah, they are so common here in the western US they are called the "pineapple express". Did you know that an atmospheric river waaaaaaaay back in 1862 flooded the entire Central Valley of California? I know! And not an SUV in sight!

But the present increase of 7% more water vapor will make them more common. A warmer ocean and a warmer atmosphere evaporates more water, the warmer atmosphere transports more water, and when it meets a mountain barrier, or a cold front, it dumps that water. Basic science.

 

[whitehall]

Does anyone really think Al Gore is on "our side of things"? Gore has no scientific background. He is an angry petulant former politician who tried to punish the U.S. economically and at the same time to cash in on so-called "carbon credits" while he and his hypocrite family allegedly used more energy in their little compound than most small towns. After his arrest for molesting a masseuse you would think he would have been uncovered by the media as a complete fraud but alas, the MSM protects democrats.

 

[ding]

Can you show me where in the geologic record that CO2 led to climate change?

It shouldn't be that hard if CO2 drives climate change, right

Why would you demand such information on a message board? Do you also come here for medical diagnosis? How about, to get your car fixed? Do you come here to decide the effectiveness of a vaccination? Weird!

For starters, I have done that analysis. It isn't that hard to do. The data is readily available.

Does that mean YOU can't show me where CO2 has led to climate change in the past?

And you are a liar. Had you done so, you would know that there is ample evidence of changes in GHG levels changing the climate.

Before I spend 56 minutes watching this. Did you watch it and can you tell me one of the examples he gave that shows that CO2 has driven climate change. Not reinforcing climate change but driving it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Can you show me where in the geologic record that CO2 led to climate change?

It shouldn't be that hard if CO2 drives climate change, right

Why would you demand such information on a message board? Do you also come here for medical diagnosis? How about, to get your car fixed? Do you come here to decide the effectiveness of a vaccination? Weird!

For starters, I have done that analysis. It isn't that hard to do. The data is readily available.

Does that mean YOU can't show me where CO2 has led to climate change in the past?

And you are a liar. Had you done so, you would know that there is ample evidence of changes in GHG levels changing the climate.

Not according to a number of published papers, which shows that CO2 follow temperature changes on the level of hundreds of years. There is a yearly CO2 lagging temperature change we see easily.

 

[ding]

Well that was lame and unoriginal....kind of like the denier blogs that are being regurgitated here....hmm, I think I sense a pattern...

LOL

Is poor FeeFee having another idiot melt down? Sensing your own failure is good.. It means you might become teachable...

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over my excitement at reading the latest global warming denier science paper...

Just kidding! Such a thing does not exist.

Can you show me where in the geologic record that CO2 led to climate change?

It shouldn't be that hard if CO2 drives climate change, right?

Just for a ******* dummy like you, the Ordovician glaciation period.

Since I am such a dummy can you explain what happened.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which blows your agenda right out of the water.

I have no agenda, only respect for science and concern for the planet I am leaving to my children. I have much less respect for those that inject politics into science and see vast conspiracies by those they see as their political opponents. I don't get my science from either Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh.

If you had respect for science you would learn to think for yourself and not parrot "scientists" who have a near 100% track record of being wrong. You would have a fundamental understanding of the Scientific Method and how the climatologists REGULARLY violate that principle. You would learn the very basics of what it is the science is trying to claim, and have enough scientific acumen of your own to know when you are being lied to.

Well over 90% of the climate "research" that is done, is purely computer models. Now, here is a real basic question for you....are computer models "data"?

No, they are not. But they are built from data. And the data says that we are rapidly warming, the glaciers and continental ice caps are melting, observations, not models. We are seeing more extreme weather events worldwide, again, observations, not models. But the models do say we are going to see an increase in both processes.

 

[Old Rocks]

The conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world are still in place today; poles isolated from warm marine currents (i.e. plate tectonics) and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm.

Dumb ****, the high for the previous 800,000 years was 300 ppm. Isolated poles and the Himalayas.

 

[westwall]

Did you know that an atmospheric river waaaaaaaay back in 1862 flooded the entire Central Valley of California? I know! And not an SUV in sight!

Well golly, I'll make sure to go tell the scientists who taught you everything you know about that , since they clearly forgot!

Forgot? Maybe, willfully misrepresenting the facts that we KNOW, absolutely. If they actually reported the real climate data their statements would be laughed out the door. They rely on you not knowing the real facts so that they can continue to shovel their BS down your throat. And blissfully ignorant you, allow them to do so.

 

[westwall]

? Yes, but the data shows that CO2 reinforces climate change. It does not drive it.

Shameles lie. All the data clearly shows that increased CO2 does, in fact, drive climate change. While at times a different mechanism may start the planet warming, increased CO2 always drives warming. It's a simple fact.

Yours is the shameless lie dude. The Vostock ice core data is very clear, CO2 levels rise AFTER the Earth warms. By hundreds of years. Go peddle your lies elsewhere.

 

[westwall]

Which blows your agenda right out of the water.

I have no agenda, only respect for science and concern for the planet I am leaving to my children. I have much less respect for those that inject politics into science and see vast conspiracies by those they see as their political opponents. I don't get my science from either Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh.

If you had respect for science you would learn to think for yourself and not parrot "scientists" who have a near 100% track record of being wrong. You would have a fundamental understanding of the Scientific Method and how the climatologists REGULARLY violate that principle. You would learn the very basics of what it is the science is trying to claim, and have enough scientific acumen of your own to know when you are being lied to.

Well over 90% of the climate "research" that is done, is purely computer models. Now, here is a real basic question for you....are computer models "data"?

No, they are not. But they are built from data. And the data says that we are rapidly warming, the glaciers and continental ice caps are melting, observations, not models. We are seeing more extreme weather events worldwide, again, observations, not models. But the models do say we are going to see an increase in both processes.

Bull poo. The only way you can generate your fantasies is to take raw data and massage it through computer models that "smooth" the data. Smoothing equals data falsification in the real world.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

 

[Billy_Bob]

But the present increase of 7% more water vapor will make them more common.

Liar!

Prove this! You cant because it isn't true..

 

[westwall]

I'm really starting to think that Gore is on our side of things!!!

Every time he opens his mouth, skeptics win!!!

Gore travels to Dubai, warns: ‘Global warming’ triggering ‘flying rivers, rain bombs’

Except they are real. Dam that science, contradicting ideology with fact.

Learn more about these rivers in the sky.

Yeah, they are so common here in the western US they are called the "pineapple express". Did you know that an atmospheric river waaaaaaaay back in 1862 flooded the entire Central Valley of California? I know! And not an SUV in sight!

But the present increase of 7% more water vapor will make them more common. A warmer ocean and a warmer atmosphere evaporates more water, the warmer atmosphere transports more water, and when it meets a mountain barrier, or a cold front, it dumps that water. Basic science.

That is a laughable assertion olfraud. The RT for water vapor is NINE days. You cool the atmosphere and that extra water vapor is gone. Go more than 12 days and whatever warming effect you may have had is looooooong gone. The real atmospheric science says the claims are absurd.

 

[ding]

The conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world are still in place today; poles isolated from warm marine currents (i.e. plate tectonics) and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm.

Dumb ****, the high for the previous 800,000 years was 300 ppm. Isolated poles and the Himalayas.

And before we entered the transition from greenhouse world to icehouse world it was 400 ppm.

Why so mad?

 

[ding]

Which blows your agenda right out of the water.

I have no agenda, only respect for science and concern for the planet I am leaving to my children. I have much less respect for those that inject politics into science and see vast conspiracies by those they see as their political opponents. I don't get my science from either Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh.

If you had respect for science you would learn to think for yourself and not parrot "scientists" who have a near 100% track record of being wrong. You would have a fundamental understanding of the Scientific Method and how the climatologists REGULARLY violate that principle. You would learn the very basics of what it is the science is trying to claim, and have enough scientific acumen of your own to know when you are being lied to.

Well over 90% of the climate "research" that is done, is purely computer models. Now, here is a real basic question for you....are computer models "data"?

No, they are not. But they are built from data. And the data says that we are rapidly warming, the glaciers and continental ice caps are melting, observations, not models. We are seeing more extreme weather events worldwide, again, observations, not models. But the models do say we are going to see an increase in both processes.

That's what happens in an interglacial cycle. Been going on for 22,000 years.

We are still 2C below peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles.

Everything is as it should be. CO2 reinforces climate change, it does not drive climate change.

 

[ding]

It appears he can't show an example of CO2 driving climate change.

Reinforcing it? Yes.

Driving it? No.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The sea level has been rising for 22,000 years since the beginning of the current interglacial cycle and will continue to do so until the next triggering event (i.e. Milankovitch / Gulf Stream switch off???). About 6000 years ago the rise leveled off at 3 mm/yr. As the conditions which led to the icehouse world still exist today (polar regions isolated from warm marine currents due to plate tectonics and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm), why do we need to do anything at all? I think atmospheric CO2 of 600 ppm is a good thing. Why? Because if you think a few degrees rise in temperature is bad (mostly in the polar regions BTW) how bad do you think it would be with a 1000 ft thick sheet of ice covering New York? Which was the case 12,000 years ago.

I'm not a climatologist and certainly don't have all the answers. What I do know is that there were plenty of large mammals that went extinct at about the time the climate changed. I just don't want humans to be the next victims, regardless of whether they are the cause or not. Even if we didn't face extinction, any minor climate changes would wreak havoc on our finely tuned existence.

lets give you some facts.... Dr David Evans

 

[alang1216]

The part I dispute is the rate of change argument. Specifically that there is no other known precedent from the past. Why? Because there isn't that kind of resolution in the data.

It seems to me to be a disingenuous argument.

So we attack and ridicule the people doing the research? Seems to me people don't want an answer if it might offend their ideology. I'd say it is analogous to those who don't believe in evolution because it contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[ding]

The part I dispute is the rate of change argument. Specifically that there is no other known precedent from the past. Why? Because there isn't that kind of resolution in the data.

It seems to me to be a disingenuous argument.

So we attack and ridicule the people doing the research? Seems to me people don't want an answer if it might offend their ideology. I'd say it is analogous to those who don't believe in evolution because it contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible.

By saying that "It seems to me to be a disingenuous argument?"

 

[ding]

Just for a ******* dummy like you...

Dumb ****...