Seriously

[ding]

That’s insane . It matters a lot. Climate Affects evolution. If we weren’t around it was for a good reason. The only relevant time frame is the length of time man has been on earth. Now, when do you say man first appeared ?

I first appeared in 1961 ... my father in 1925 ... his father in 1889 ... climate hasn't change in that short of a time period ...

I'll be driving south this weekend to do grocery shopping ... takes me about two hours and the temperature will be 2ºC warmer ... I survive this trip every month for three years now ... just curious, how much do you think average temperatures will be rising in the next 100 years? ... the IPCC isn't always correct and perhaps you have better information than they do ...

∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...

Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?

That’s way over his head.

This says you are FOS

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/Comparisons-of-simulated-and-reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-temperature-changes-v2.jpg?itok=hTrGCRLC

You will swallow anything.

 

[Dagosa]

Gee, why am I not impressed by anyone giving an answer to a question they can easily look up on the internet. You seem to be....that’s a pretty false assumption of knowledge.

Meaning you act the baboon just repeating what you think you heard ... still waiting for the list of 3400 universities ... how many are Liberal Arts colleges? ...

The ice core data set shows the interglacial 125,000 years ago was warmer than IPCC predictions ... and IPCC predictions are cooler than it was during this interglacial ...

But hey, without any knowledge .. you're entitled to have strong opinions ... forget I asked to see your math please ...

Yep, in fact we are still below the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycles.

A meaningless observation even if it were true. The last time I looked, peak wasn’t average, dah.
Interglacial cycles easily happen at a rate slow Enough for species to adapt. Since the industrial revolution The rate of change In average temps has accelerated dramatically.

We aren't outside the norm. Are you suggesting that humans can't survive an interglacial cycle?

You really don’t understand “Rate of change“ do you ? We just had and will continue to have CE immigrants whose farm lands were wiped out by droughts that happened so quickly, their third world governments could not adjust. Crime and unrest results causing mass immigration problems on our border. This is our own intel assessment.... dah

Climate change is the overlooked driver of Central American migration - The World from PRX

Toward the end of 2018, Central American migrant groups of several thousands of people began journeys towards the United States. Many are fleeing a massive drought that has lasted for five years.

www.pri.org

I'm an engineer. I understand rate of change just fine. I also understand that there's not enough resolution to say the rate of change is any different than any other interglacial cycle. What we can say with certainty is that our present temperature is below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles so our present average temperature is less than the previous average temperatures in previous interglacial cycles so we still have a ways to go. Rate of change means jack shit. Sea levels and temperatures have been rising for the past 22,000 years.

How long has man been on earth ?

What does that matter? Climates changed before man got here.

Did you know that 55 million years ago that atmospheric CO2 was 3500 ppm?

That’s insane . It matters a lot. Climate Affects evolution. If we weren’t around it was for a good reason. The only relevant time frame is the length of time man has been on earth. Now, when do you say man first appeared ?

Relax, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. You are at a greater risk of freezing than boiling.

“Relax, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. You are at a greater risk of freezing than boiling.”
What makes you say that ? Anyone who knows physics is aware that even though an area that’s on average getting warmer there are some areas due to convection currents That are cooling down. That’s at least the third time I’ve heard a mistake of implying that if the average temperature is rising, somehow that means it’s getting warmer everywhere. Nope.

If you had studied the history of the earth’s climate you would understand.

I understand way more then you. You think you’re smarter then NASA, universities and the aaas. You have a question, direct it to these dependable institutions. Tell us where in any course titled “History of the earths climate“ , is their any contradiction to AGW. Any where..,,find one university, just one and only one.

I got the data from NASA

Oh, the data from 40 million years ago when the earths temperature was so hot from green house gasses mankind could not survive ?
Try something more recent.

https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/styles/resource_image/http/data.globalchange.gov/assets/22/05/f91f3e0f9de762a469592dc44804/CS_global_temp_and_co2_1880-2012_V3.png?itok=_eLJDZSz

 

[ding]

Gee, why am I not impressed by anyone giving an answer to a question they can easily look up on the internet. You seem to be....that’s a pretty false assumption of knowledge.

Meaning you act the baboon just repeating what you think you heard ... still waiting for the list of 3400 universities ... how many are Liberal Arts colleges? ...

The ice core data set shows the interglacial 125,000 years ago was warmer than IPCC predictions ... and IPCC predictions are cooler than it was during this interglacial ...

But hey, without any knowledge .. you're entitled to have strong opinions ... forget I asked to see your math please ...

Yep, in fact we are still below the peak temperature of the previous interglacial cycles.

A meaningless observation even if it were true. The last time I looked, peak wasn’t average, dah.
Interglacial cycles easily happen at a rate slow Enough for species to adapt. Since the industrial revolution The rate of change In average temps has accelerated dramatically.

We aren't outside the norm. Are you suggesting that humans can't survive an interglacial cycle?

You really don’t understand “Rate of change“ do you ? We just had and will continue to have CE immigrants whose farm lands were wiped out by droughts that happened so quickly, their third world governments could not adjust. Crime and unrest results causing mass immigration problems on our border. This is our own intel assessment.... dah

Climate change is the overlooked driver of Central American migration - The World from PRX

Toward the end of 2018, Central American migrant groups of several thousands of people began journeys towards the United States. Many are fleeing a massive drought that has lasted for five years.

www.pri.org

I'm an engineer. I understand rate of change just fine. I also understand that there's not enough resolution to say the rate of change is any different than any other interglacial cycle. What we can say with certainty is that our present temperature is below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles so our present average temperature is less than the previous average temperatures in previous interglacial cycles so we still have a ways to go. Rate of change means jack shit. Sea levels and temperatures have been rising for the past 22,000 years.

How long has man been on earth ?

What does that matter? Climates changed before man got here.

Did you know that 55 million years ago that atmospheric CO2 was 3500 ppm?

That’s insane . It matters a lot. Climate Affects evolution. If we weren’t around it was for a good reason. The only relevant time frame is the length of time man has been on earth. Now, when do you say man first appeared ?

Relax, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. You are at a greater risk of freezing than boiling.

“Relax, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. You are at a greater risk of freezing than boiling.”
What makes you say that ? Anyone who knows physics is aware that even though an area that’s on average getting warmer there are some areas due to convection currents That are cooling down. That’s at least the third time I’ve heard a mistake of implying that if the average temperature is rising, somehow that means it’s getting warmer everywhere. Nope.

If you had studied the history of the earth’s climate you would understand.

I understand way more then you. You think you’re smarter then NASA, universities and the aaas. You have a question, direct it to these dependable institutions. Tell us where in any course titled “History of the earths climate“ , is their any contradiction to AGW. Any where..,,find one university, just one and only one.

I got the data from NASA

Oh, the data from 40 million years ago when the earths temperature was so hot from green house gasses mankind could not survive ?
Try something more recent. View attachment 366828View attachment 366828View attachment 366828

https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/styles/resource_image/http/data.globalchange.gov/assets/22/05/f91f3e0f9de762a469592dc44804/CS_global_temp_and_co2_1880-2012_V3.png?itok=_eLJDZSz

That's what happens in an interglacial cycle, dummy.

Glacial-Interglacial Cycles | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Feedbacks related to ice and atmospheric carbon dioxide caused abrupt warming during the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

 

[ding]

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow

www.giss.nasa.gov

notice how for most of the last 800,000 years how much colder the planet was. That's what these nuts want... an icehouse.

 

[ding]

dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.

 

[Dagosa]

dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.

Your little charts are irrelevant ......
This is all you need to know. According to Smithsonian
Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach Highest Point in Human History
Last Friday, carbon concentrations at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory topped 415 ppm

 

[Dagosa]

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow

www.giss.nasa.gov

View attachment 366834

notice how for most of the last 800,000 years how much colder the planet was. That's what these nuts want... an icehouse.

Why are you so stupid ? The earth was around millions of years before mankind. It only matters what happened during man’s history .
That’s the only specie that matters
Why do you keep chasing this stupid tale ?

 

[Dagosa]

dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.

Are you smarter then Johns Hopkins ?

Johns Hopkins Researchers: Climate Change Threatens to Unlock New Microbes and Increase Heat-Related Illness and Death

Bloomberg Distinguished Professors Ahima and Casadevall warn of new infectious diseases and problems related to thermoregulation

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

 

[Dagosa]

dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.

Reading is not your forte......

 

[ding]

dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.

Your little charts are irrelevant ......
This is all you need to know. According to Smithsonian
Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach Highest Point in Human History
Last Friday, carbon concentrations at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory topped 415 ppm

Actually, no. They are extremely relevant. The conditions which existed that created the icehouse world are still present today, dummy.

Look how cold you want it to be.

 

[ding]

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow

www.giss.nasa.gov

View attachment 366834

notice how for most of the last 800,000 years how much colder the planet was. That's what these nuts want... an icehouse.

Why are you so stupid ? The earth was around millions of years before mankind. It only matters what happened during man’s history .
That’s the only specie that matters
Why do you keep chasing this stupid tale ?

Wrong. All of the history and data matters.

 

[ding]

dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.

Are you smarter then Johns Hopkins ?

Johns Hopkins Researchers: Climate Change Threatens to Unlock New Microbes and Increase Heat-Related Illness and Death

Bloomberg Distinguished Professors Ahima and Casadevall warn of new infectious diseases and problems related to thermoregulation

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

If they believe that we are headed for imminent doom, yes.

 

[Dagosa]

dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.

Your little charts are irrelevant ......
This is all you need to know. According to Smithsonian
Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach Highest Point in Human History
Last Friday, carbon concentrations at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory topped 415 ppm

Actually, no. They are extremely relevant. The conditions which existed that created the icehouse world are still present today, dummy.

Look how cold you want it to be.

View attachment 366852

No they aren’t. Your scale is all off. The rate if change is greater then at any time in the history of mankind dufus.

 

[ding]

dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.

Reading is not your forte......

So now do you understand what it means to be in an interglacial cycle or do you need some more education?

 

[Dagosa]

That’s insane . It matters a lot. Climate Affects evolution. If we weren’t around it was for a good reason. The only relevant time frame is the length of time man has been on earth. Now, when do you say man first appeared ?

I first appeared in 1961 ... my father in 1925 ... his father in 1889 ... climate hasn't change in that short of a time period ...

I'll be driving south this weekend to do grocery shopping ... takes me about two hours and the temperature will be 2ºC warmer ... I survive this trip every month for three years now ... just curious, how much do you think average temperatures will be rising in the next 100 years? ... the IPCC isn't always correct and perhaps you have better information than they do ...

∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...

Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?

That’s way over his head.

This says you are FOS

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/Comparisons-of-simulated-and-reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-temperature-changes-v2.jpg?itok=hTrGCRLC

You will swallow anything.

You’re smarter then Johns Hopkins and MIT.....true or false ?

 

[ding]

dipshits look at the temps for the past 1000 years and thinks they have looked at climate change.

Your little charts are irrelevant ......
This is all you need to know. According to Smithsonian
Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach Highest Point in Human History
Last Friday, carbon concentrations at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory topped 415 ppm

Actually, no. They are extremely relevant. The conditions which existed that created the icehouse world are still present today, dummy.

Look how cold you want it to be.

View attachment 366852

No they aren’t. Your scale is all off. The rate if change is greater then at any time in the history of mankind dufus.

That would be NASA's scale

And no, it's not off. But thank you for proving you think this is important by arguing that the data is off scale. I knew even you couldn't ignore the importance of this graph.

Here, I'll share it again.

 

[ding]

That’s insane . It matters a lot. Climate Affects evolution. If we weren’t around it was for a good reason. The only relevant time frame is the length of time man has been on earth. Now, when do you say man first appeared ?

I first appeared in 1961 ... my father in 1925 ... his father in 1889 ... climate hasn't change in that short of a time period ...

I'll be driving south this weekend to do grocery shopping ... takes me about two hours and the temperature will be 2ºC warmer ... I survive this trip every month for three years now ... just curious, how much do you think average temperatures will be rising in the next 100 years? ... the IPCC isn't always correct and perhaps you have better information than they do ...

∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...

Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?

That’s way over his head.

This says you are FOS

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/Comparisons-of-simulated-and-reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-temperature-changes-v2.jpg?itok=hTrGCRLC

You will swallow anything.

You’re smarter then Johns Hopkins and MIT.....true or false ?

If they believe that the earth is headed for a catastrophe because of CO2, yes.

What part of that didn't you understand, dummy?

 

[Dagosa]

That’s insane . It matters a lot. Climate Affects evolution. If we weren’t around it was for a good reason. The only relevant time frame is the length of time man has been on earth. Now, when do you say man first appeared ?

I first appeared in 1961 ... my father in 1925 ... his father in 1889 ... climate hasn't change in that short of a time period ...

I'll be driving south this weekend to do grocery shopping ... takes me about two hours and the temperature will be 2ºC warmer ... I survive this trip every month for three years now ... just curious, how much do you think average temperatures will be rising in the next 100 years? ... the IPCC isn't always correct and perhaps you have better information than they do ...

∆T = 5.35 k ln (CO2F/CO2I) where ∆T = change in temperature, k = climate sensitivity, CO2F = final carbon dioxide concentration, CO2I = initial carbon dioxide concentration ...

Are you familiar with the behavior of logrithmic functions?

That’s way over his head.

This says you are FOS

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_page_width/public/Comparisons-of-simulated-and-reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-temperature-changes-v2.jpg?itok=hTrGCRLC

You will swallow anything.

You’re smarter then Johns Hopkins and MIT.....true or false ?

If they believe that the earth is headed for a catastrophe because of CO2, yes.

What part of that didn't you understand, dummy?

Climate change denier pigeons.

 

[ding]

Only morons believe that CO2 drives climate change. CO2 reinforces climate change. It doesn't drive it.

 

[ding]

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.

We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world.

Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record.

The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.

The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient.