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!

Study finds 4C increase will put 1/3rd of all Antarctic shelves at risk of collapse

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,163
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
You mean we can't just accept the data that the temperatures of the polar regions are rising faster than anywhere else?

Is that how science works for you? ... an apple falls straight down, we should accept that and not bother to explain why? ...

Is this a round-about way of withdrawing your claims in your post #43? ...
No. I am saying that we shouldn't explain why the apple is falling up when it is falling down.

You mean that it should be called polar warming instead of global warming? No. I think that is an accurate claim. I can't help it if you have a stick stuck so far up your butt that you missed the claim because you were looking for something to nitpick. Fuckin' vainglory, eh?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,163
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
I will even go out on a limb here and say that I would expect the northern hemisphere polar region should be warming faster than the southern hemisphere polar region because the northern hemisphere polar region has a lower atmospheric CO2 threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the southern hemisphere polar region (not by a little either, by a lot, 280 vs 600). AND because the northern hemisphere polar region dominates climate change on the planet because of said lower threshold and is the reason temperature swings have become more dramatic and frequent since bipolar glaciation began.

I love how the so called experts discuss everything but the features which have driven climate change. It boggles my mind how such supposedly intelligent people can ignore the most significant climatic event in the last 50 million years and not see how that event is driving today's climate.
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,575
Points
2,050
I will even go out on a limb here and say that I would expect the northern hemisphere polar region would probably be warming faster than the southern hemisphere polar region because the northern hemisphere polar region has a lower atmospheric CO2 threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the southern hemisphere polar region (not by a little either, by a lot, 280 vs 600). AND because the northern hemisphere polar region dominates the climate on the planet because of said lower threshold and is the reason temperature swings have become more dramatic and frequent since bipolar glaciation began.

I love how the so called experts discuss everything but the features which have driven climate change. It boggles my mind how such supposedly intelligent people can ignore the most significant climatic event in the last 50 million years and not see how that event is driving today's climate.

The Earth is getting colder and colder too in each glaciation phase.

When the land eventually cover over most of the NP region, glaciation may become permanent.

That is one long range forecast we face.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
You mean that it should be called polar warming instead of global warming? No. I think that is an accurate claim. I can't help it if you have a stick stuck so far up your butt that you missed the claim because you were looking for something to nitpick. Fuckin' vainglory, eh?

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you're admitting your claims are completely bogus and have run out of room to backtrack ... you should look up the word "vainglory" and see how it related to your refusal to admit you're wrong ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,163
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
You mean that it should be called polar warming instead of global warming? No. I think that is an accurate claim. I can't help it if you have a stick stuck so far up your butt that you missed the claim because you were looking for something to nitpick. Fuckin' vainglory, eh?

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you're admitting your claims are completely bogus and have run out of room to backtrack ... you should look up the word "vainglory" and see how it related to your refusal to admit you're wrong ...
Actually I am calling a spade a spade. You have been harboring resentment for awhile. Everything I have said is correct. If you want to ignore the climate is driven by the northern hemisphere, feel free to do so. NASA has gotten a few things right.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Actually I am calling a spade a spade. You have been harboring resentment for awhile. Everything I have said is correct. If you want to ignore the climate is driven by the northern hemisphere, feel free to do so. NASA has gotten a few things right.

More personal attacks, I feel honored ...
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,590
Reaction score
8,163
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Actually I am calling a spade a spade. You have been harboring resentment for awhile. Everything I have said is correct. If you want to ignore the climate is driven by the northern hemisphere, feel free to do so. NASA has gotten a few things right.

More personal attacks, I feel honored ...
Actually I have yet to make one.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
32,949
Reaction score
3,477
Points
1,130
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk



Your title is wrong. It doesn't say "will", it says "at risk". Two very different things.

The problem with science reports is most people are unable to understand what is being said. They see "may" or "might" and they think "will".

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Or, there might be a natural 4 degree increase and no matter what humans do or don't do, it'll increase anyway.

What would the world temperature be today if humans never existed and industrialization never happened?

We don't know. So how can we know if it's higher now than it "should be"?

And also, there might not be a 4 degree increase.

Holy shit ... that much increase is insane ... the most recent IPCC report only gives half that much increase (AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text) over the next 100 years, and 3ºC increase over the next 500 years ... the 4ºC increase is click-bait ... and all of this is strictly theoretical, no one to date has been able to demonstrate CO2 having more than a trivial effect on global temperatures ...

it's a problem, because there really is an issue out there, which is humans living in balance with their world.

The coronavirus is an example of humans not living in balance. The next big thing is anti-biotics. The Chinese are using antibiotics like crazy. We're going to wake up on day and we're not going to be able to use antibiotics, and that's going to kill a lot of people.

Pollution is killing people, mostly in second and third world countries, it destroys your lungs.

There are problems, but for some reason people like man made global warming, feel there's money to be made there. And the other side like it because they find it easy to turn into a conspiracy theory. It's a good issue for people to attack each other in the typical Rep-Dem partisan warfare.

We do have lots of problems. We need to work on all of them. One of them is global warming. One of the difficulties in working on the global warming problem is idiots like you.

Global warming has been happening for a long time. Way before industrialization.

How do you work on that problem when it's a natural process?

You're quick with your insults, so if I'm an idiot because I can't tell you what the world average temperature would have been had humans not industrialized, then you as a fucking genius can tell me.

So, tell me, what would the world average temperature have been without human intervention?

About 1.5C lower than the present. Did you actually think that was a difficult question? Have you not seen graphs like this before?
View attachment 480892

Have you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? Do you not understand what it had to do with the combustion of fossil fuels?

Problem is you're making the assumption that temperatures would remain the same. Why?


Based on what you've written, we can assume that in the Pleistocene era, there must have been some human industrialization going on, because temperatures were going from a -4 degree to a 0 degree range on this chart. Then all of a sudden this changed about 7 peaks in, and rose, and even got to +3 degrees before then dropping for 10,000 years.

Also we could assume that 500,000 years ago we were polluting the atmosphere like crazy.

But we know there was no industrialization then. So....
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,746
Points
290
Location
N/A
Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?

The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown ... seems that even demonstrating this relationship is beyond human ability ... the question remains unanswered ... how much does CO2 raise temperatures in isolation? ... and show your math please, this is physics, not astrology ...
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,746
Points
290
Location
N/A
Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?

The argument is that the relationship between CO2 concentration and SB's graybody "emissivity" factor is unknown ... seems that even demonstrating this relationship is beyond human ability ... the question remains unanswered ... how much does CO2 raise temperatures in isolation? ... and show your math please, this is physics, not astrology ...

You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,090
Reaction score
2,471
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?

I've never claimed humans can't effect climate ... I ask by how much ... I don't know the relationship between carbon and emissivity, and I'm guessing neither do you ... and it appears no one does ... I have absolutely no idea why it's so difficult to shine IR light into a vessel of gas and measure the temperature ...

Forest fires in The West are investigated and a cause determined ... there's a few website that tabulate this data and posts the percentages ... don't do it, it's very depressing ... can you provide this same precision data for all the components of AGW theory? ... can you even demonstrate all these components? ... I'll bring the vodka, you bring the cigarettes, I'll fully demonstrate how an embarrassing number of forest fires are started every year ... or round up some Californians and give them matches to play with ...
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,575
Points
2,050
Why do you all make such stupid arguments? Could it be because there are no valid ones for you to make?

That is funny since you don't post links to your charts, you ignore good questions and you ignored science research that I posted (with link too) showing that a Volcano is significant factor in the melting of Pine Island glacier that you posted about.

POST 17 you ignored

POST 24 you ignored

POST 31 you ignored

:cool:
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,746
Points
290
Location
N/A
You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?

I've never claimed humans can't effect climate ... I ask by how much ... I don't know the relationship between carbon and emissivity, and I'm guessing neither do you ... and it appears no one does ... I have absolutely no idea why it's so difficult to shine IR light into a vessel of gas and measure the temperature ...

Forest fires in The West are investigated and a cause determined ... there's a few website that tabulate this data and posts the percentages ... don't do it, it's very depressing ... can you provide this same precision data for all the components of AGW theory? ... can you even demonstrate all these components? ... I'll bring the vodka, you bring the cigarettes, I'll fully demonstrate how an embarrassing number of forest fires are started every year ... or round up some Californians and give them matches to play with ...

I suggest you make the supreme effort of asking Google to show you experiments demonstrating the Greenhouse Effect. If Google comes up empty, you let us know. If you think warming from GHGs can't be demonstrated, it can only be because you've never looked.
 

jackflash

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
1,133
Points
1,908
Location
USA
Larsen C, Shackleton, Pine Island and Wilkins ice shelves at greatest risk





If I were you I would NOT be worried about 'man made global warming'.
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,746
Points
290
Location
N/A
You're about four years behind the times. The sun is not responsible for the global warming of the last 150 years and the claim that all the planets are experiencing warming has been refuted soundly.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
120,587
Reaction score
35,486
Points
2,220
You're about four years behind the times. The sun is not responsible for the global warming of the last 150 years and the claim that all the planets are experiencing warming has been refuted soundly.

Yeah the sun has no effect on climate or weather, we have "consensus!"
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,575
Points
2,050
You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?

I've never claimed humans can't effect climate ... I ask by how much ... I don't know the relationship between carbon and emissivity, and I'm guessing neither do you ... and it appears no one does ... I have absolutely no idea why it's so difficult to shine IR light into a vessel of gas and measure the temperature ...

Forest fires in The West are investigated and a cause determined ... there's a few website that tabulate this data and posts the percentages ... don't do it, it's very depressing ... can you provide this same precision data for all the components of AGW theory? ... can you even demonstrate all these components? ... I'll bring the vodka, you bring the cigarettes, I'll fully demonstrate how an embarrassing number of forest fires are started every year ... or round up some Californians and give them matches to play with ...

I suggest you make the supreme effort of asking Google to show you experiments demonstrating the Greenhouse Effect. If Google comes up empty, you let us know. If you think warming from GHGs can't be demonstrated, it can only be because you've never looked.

You are full of shit, YOU keep dodging ReinyDays questions and request for evidence, you ignore it all.

It is clear YOU have NOTHING!

AGW by itself CAN NOT generate a big warming trend, even warmist/alarmist scientists have said the same for years now. It is the POSITIVE feedback that is claimed to make that possible but has been a long time failure.

I think Crick put me on ignore for retaliating over my REPORTS to the moderator about his continual failure to post links to his charts, most of his posts I have reported been removed.
 
OP
Crick

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,812
Reaction score
1,746
Points
290
Location
N/A
You were making the argument that because human GHG emissions did not exist in the past when CO2 levels and temperatures were high, they could not be responsible for warming today. That is patently ignorant nonsense. Mamooth had a good analogy. There were forest fires in the past, long before the appearance of modern humans. Therefore humans cannot be responsible for forest fires today. Right?

I've never claimed humans can't effect climate ... I ask by how much ... I don't know the relationship between carbon and emissivity, and I'm guessing neither do you ... and it appears no one does ... I have absolutely no idea why it's so difficult to shine IR light into a vessel of gas and measure the temperature ...

Forest fires in The West are investigated and a cause determined ... there's a few website that tabulate this data and posts the percentages ... don't do it, it's very depressing ... can you provide this same precision data for all the components of AGW theory? ... can you even demonstrate all these components? ... I'll bring the vodka, you bring the cigarettes, I'll fully demonstrate how an embarrassing number of forest fires are started every year ... or round up some Californians and give them matches to play with ...

I suggest you make the supreme effort of asking Google to show you experiments demonstrating the Greenhouse Effect. If Google comes up empty, you let us know. If you think warming from GHGs can't be demonstrated, it can only be because you've never looked.

You are full of shit, YOU keep dodging ReinyDays questions and request for evidence, you ignore it all.

It is clear YOU have NOTHING!

AGW by itself CAN NOT generate a big warming trend, even warmist/alarmist scientists have said the same for years now. It is the POSITIVE feedback that is claimed to make that possible but has been a long time failure.

I think Crick put me on ignore for retaliating over my REPORTS to the moderator about his continual failure to post links to his charts, most of his posts I have reported been removed.

I have put you on ignore but if anyone has removed any of my posts, they didn't bother to tell me about it.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top