What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. 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!

Satellite data show Earth's glaciers in massive decline

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,633
Reaction score
6,863
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
97,873
Reaction score
12,213
Points
2,180
Seasonal timing has changed. Plants will take a little longer to evolve to make use of that change. Say, a hundred thousand years or so.
where has seasonal timing changed?
explain what the fk that is supposed to illustrate exactly?
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,633
Reaction score
6,863
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
explain what the fk that is supposed to illustrate exactly?
The USDA climate zones moving north, due to the warming climate.

Where I live used to be Zone 5. Now it's Zone 6. That's because it's gotten warmer, so the same type of plants will now grow further north.
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,863
Reaction score
1,774
Points
290
Location
N/A
And plants for which Zone 5 was their southern limit are now dying there.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,537
Reaction score
1,504
Points
140
Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,135
Reaction score
8,552
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.
You are fucking idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,135
Reaction score
8,552
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
explain what the fk that is supposed to illustrate exactly?
The USDA climate zones moving north, due to the warming climate.

Where I live used to be Zone 5. Now it's Zone 6. That's because it's gotten warmer, so the same type of plants will now grow further north.
It's called an interglacial cycle.
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,863
Reaction score
1,774
Points
290
Location
N/A
Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.
You are fucking idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.

You need to move away from thinking your emotional hunches have ANYTHING to do with valid science. They don't. And you need to brush up your numbers. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level is 420 ppm. 420-280 = 140, not 130. And then, perhaps you should think about like this: 140*100/280 = a 50% increase. Now doesn't that SOUND more dramatic? Good, Because it fucking IS.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,537
Reaction score
1,504
Points
140
Wow, so the dingbat called me {a} "fucking idiot" for a fallacious reason. How shocking. No wonder I still ignore him.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,537
Reaction score
1,504
Points
140
It's called an interglacial cycle.

It's called AGW >> Climate Change
Now continue trying like hell to ignore those dramatically increasing values on the far right where a gradual to steep decline similar to the oxygen curve is obviously indicated for all normally. Way beyond anything Milankovitch cycles or your sunspots can possibly account for. But, you know.. what else you got? Just your fellow butthurt, heavily fossil fuel invested, AGW deniers. Good luck with that bunch.

Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,135
Reaction score
8,552
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.
You are fucking idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.

You need to move away from thinking your emotional hunches have ANYTHING to do with valid science. They don't. And you need to brush up your numbers. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level is 420 ppm. 420-280 = 140, not 130. And then, perhaps you should think about like this: 140*100/280 = a 50% increase. Now doesn't that SOUND more dramatic? Good, Because it fucking IS.
Great. Now do the radiative forcing calculation and compare that answer to the graph that you believe shows man made warming due to CO2.

Because you are the one with the emotional hunch. I am doing cold hard calculations and there's no room in math for emotions, chicken little.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,135
Reaction score
8,552
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
It's called an interglacial cycle.

It's called AGW >> Climate Change
Now continue trying like hell to ignore those dramatically increasing values on the far right where a gradual to steep decline similar to the oxygen curve is obviously indicated for all normally. Way beyond anything Milankovitch cycles or your sunspots can possibly account for. But, you know.. what else you got? Just your fellow butthurt, heavily fossil fuel invested, AGW deniers. Good luck with that bunch.

Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
Can you do the radiative forcing calculation? Or do you need for me to do it for you? It's OK if you can't do the math. I would be glad to teach it to you. :)
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,135
Reaction score
8,552
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Why is it that these so called scientific minded global warming fanatics can't do simple math :dunno:
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,135
Reaction score
8,552
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
The thing I love about these graphs is how they show the relationship between temperature and CO2 is broken.

Prior to the industrial revolution temperature and CO2 moved together in lock step. But not so much since the industrial revolution.

1621177903835.png
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,504
Reaction score
36,700
Points
2,290
It's called an interglacial cycle.

It's called AGW >> Climate Change
Now continue trying like hell to ignore those dramatically increasing values on the far right where a gradual to steep decline similar to the oxygen curve is obviously indicated for all normally. Way beyond anything Milankovitch cycles or your sunspots can possibly account for. But, you know.. what else you got? Just your fellow butthurt, heavily fossil fuel invested, AGW deniers. Good luck with that bunch.

Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
Post one single experiment that shows temperature increase as a result of increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm

Just one time
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,135
Reaction score
8,552
Points
2,070
Location
Houston

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top