Summary of the recent USMB climate debate

[EMH]

In short, we have clear truth here, buried by trolls trying to shout it down.

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, and both showed no warming in the atmosphere despite rising CO2 before crick's taxpayer funded heroes fudged both to keep the Co2 fraud going...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

Their theory is that increasing Co2 in the atmosphere would warm the atmosphere

THEORY REJECTED


We have absolutely no breakout in cane activity, which would occur if oceans were actually warming.

We have no visual evidence of a single landmark on Earth "sinking" due to ocean "rise" because oceans are not rising because Antarctica is not melting at all, but rather gaining ice.

We have a planet where EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LAND WITHIN 600 miles of a pole is in continent specific ICE AGE, and every piece of land outside of 600 miles of a pole is not, and land moves.

We have one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, with 90% of Earth ice, surface temps 50F colder than Arctic, and puts 9 times the ice that the Arctic puts in the oceans. In short, one Earth polar circle cools Earth much more than the other. All about land near the pole. Two polar oceans and Earth has no ice. That is the driver of Earth climate change.

We have the Co2 Fraud supporters here completely unable to explain how in the past 1 million years Co2 froze Greenland and melted North America AT THE SAME TIME because it did not and ATMOSPHERE is ruled out as a cause of either... The cause is that Greenland recently moved into the "within 600 miles" to the Pole zone and NA moved out (except for Ellesmere)

In short, Co2 does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Earth climate change is 99%+ about WHERE LAND IS, and LAND MOVES, and we could increase atmospheric Co2 10 fold from current levels and


IT WOULD STILL DO NOTHING

 

[EMH]

Yer dumb

This from someone unable to answer

How did Co2 melt North America and freeze Greenland at the same time....

Jeopardy! music still playing

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

In short, we have clear truth here, buried by trolls trying to shout it down.

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, and both showed no warming in the atmosphere despite rising CO2 before crick's taxpayer funded heroes fudged both to keep the Co2 fraud going...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

Their theory is that increasing Co2 in the atmosphere would warm the atmosphere

THEORY REJECTED


We have absolutely no breakout in cane activity, which would occur if oceans were actually warming.

We have no visual evidence of a single landmark on Earth "sinking" due to ocean "rise" because oceans are not rising because Antarctica is not melting at all, but rather gaining ice.

We have a planet where EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LAND WITHIN 600 miles of a pole is in continent specific ICE AGE, and every piece of land outside of 600 miles of a pole is not, and land moves.

We have one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, with 90% of Earth ice, surface temps 50F colder than Arctic, and puts 9 times the ice that the Arctic puts in the oceans. In short, one Earth polar circle cools Earth much more than the other. All about land near the pole. Two polar oceans and Earth has no ice. That is the driver of Earth climate change.

We have the Co2 Fraud supporters here completely unable to explain how in the past 1 million years Co2 froze Greenland and melted North America AT THE SAME TIME because it did not and ATMOSPHERE is ruled out as a cause of either... The cause is that Greenland recently moved into the "within 600 miles" to the Pole zone and NA moved out (except for Ellesmere)

In short, Co2 does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Earth climate change is 99%+ about WHERE LAND IS, and LAND MOVES, and we could increase atmospheric Co2 10 fold from current levels and


IT WOULD STILL DO NOTHING

I have always wondered how a clear colorless gas like CO2 can retain heat? Since light passes through it, it can retain nothing. Now water vapor, that has the ability not only to grab the heat, but with humidity, temperatures can be at times, stifling. That is why in GREEN HOUSES, the humidity is high, along with the temperature.

If you notice the weatherman when he comes out for the days temperature, if it isnt going to break the hot record, he uses the term "FEELS LIKE", to try to bust the record. He uses temperature and humidity, instead of the actual temperature. The Climate Alarmists are such dishonorable people, now they want to ban gas stoves and air conditioners, using the fear of climate change to control the stupid people.

 

[shockedcanadian]

It would be so mich easier to trust science if it wasn't politicized and manipulated for profit. It is impossible to know what to believe because so many assertions have been proven incorrect over many decades.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Yer dumb

He's accurate.
So is this man:
FREE YOURSELF FROM THE ILLUSION THAT CLIMATE CHANGE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ENVIRONMENT. IT IS, DE FACTO (< in reality,) THE WAY WE DISTRIBUTE THE WORLD'S WEALTH.
Ottmar Edenhofer ~U.N. IPPC < (the one that distributes our money to anybody with a hand out.)

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It would be so mich easier to trust science if it wasn't politicized and manipulated for profit. It is impossible to know what to believe because so many assertions have been proven incorrect over many decades.

i remember Rush once saying "The Marxists/Democrats, could take credit for stopping global warming when the big freeze (Polar Vortex) hit the US. But instead, they doubled down and changed the verbiage from global warming to Climate Change in hopes that no one would notice. Now we know the GW zealots would believe that the sky was falling if the Marxist/Democrat said so, so those dumb Joe Biden voters just bubble headed agreement with the new wording, while the rest of the intelligent people, saw the scam get worse, and now we are paying for it with high food and energy prices and soon no gas stoves, furnaces, and fireplaces. We will be like Europe going out cutting down trees to bring a little heat during those cold winters. Marxism/Democrats are a Cancer in the world....

 

[EMH]

I have always wondered how a clear colorless gas like CO2 can retain heat?

All gasses absorb some part of EM spectrum.

Fortunately, ozone absorbs powerful dangerous and harmful UV and conveniently stays at the top of the atmosphere doing it...

Co2 absorbs weak IR, which is weaker than visual light.

And that is why adding Co2 to the atmosphere does nothing, because it is absorbing EM spectrum on the very weak side...

 

[EMH]

That is why in GREEN HOUSES, the humidity is high, along with the temperature.

When you have an Earth with two polar oceans and hence no ice, you have an Earth that is raining almost all the time, because H20 in the atmosphere goes up exponentially with temperature.

From space, if you saw that Earth, you would see no land or ocean, just clouds, a mini "gas giant."

 

[EMH]

It would be so mich easier to trust science if it wasn't politicized and manipulated for profit. It is impossible to know what to believe because so many assertions have been proven incorrect over many decades.

The lesson is that government should fund the collection and publication of DATA only. It should not fund 5,000 liars to fudge data and hide the actual data.

Global Warming is "political science" and the funding for those "studies" is all about the guarantee that the "study" will claim "warming" even as the data shows none.

 

[EMH]

i remember Rush once saying "The Marxists/Democrats, could take credit for stopping global warming when the big freeze (Polar Vortex) hit the US. But instead, they doubled down and changed the verbiage from global warming to Climate Change in hopes that no one would notice. Now we know the GW zealots would believe that the sky was falling if the Marxist/Democrat said so, so those dumb Joe Biden voters just bubble headed agreement with the new wording, while the rest of the intelligent people, saw the scam get worse, and now we are paying for it with high food and energy prices and soon no gas stoves, furnaces, and fireplaces. We will be like Europe going out cutting down trees to bring a little heat during those cold winters. Marxism/Democrats are a Cancer in the world....

The people behind the Co2 fraud are not "allies" of America, freedom, democracy, and especially capitalism.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The billions of trees in the world need CO2 to survive. They in turn give us oxygen. There are enough trees to absorb all of the CO2 in the air. This is a scheme that is sucking us dry.

Janet Yellen at the Glasgow Finance Day Event said that they should be able to pull in between 100 and 150 TRILLION DOLLARS in the next 3 decades. They are gong to completely drain us.

 

[Foxfyre]

In short, we have clear truth here, buried by trolls trying to shout it down.

We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons, and both showed no warming in the atmosphere despite rising CO2 before crick's taxpayer funded heroes fudged both to keep the Co2 fraud going...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

Their theory is that increasing Co2 in the atmosphere would warm the atmosphere

THEORY REJECTED


We have absolutely no breakout in cane activity, which would occur if oceans were actually warming.

We have no visual evidence of a single landmark on Earth "sinking" due to ocean "rise" because oceans are not rising because Antarctica is not melting at all, but rather gaining ice.

We have a planet where EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LAND WITHIN 600 miles of a pole is in continent specific ICE AGE, and every piece of land outside of 600 miles of a pole is not, and land moves.

We have one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, with 90% of Earth ice, surface temps 50F colder than Arctic, and puts 9 times the ice that the Arctic puts in the oceans. In short, one Earth polar circle cools Earth much more than the other. All about land near the pole. Two polar oceans and Earth has no ice. That is the driver of Earth climate change.

We have the Co2 Fraud supporters here completely unable to explain how in the past 1 million years Co2 froze Greenland and melted North America AT THE SAME TIME because it did not and ATMOSPHERE is ruled out as a cause of either... The cause is that Greenland recently moved into the "within 600 miles" to the Pole zone and NA moved out (except for Ellesmere)

In short, Co2 does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Earth climate change is 99%+ about WHERE LAND IS, and LAND MOVES, and we could increase atmospheric Co2 10 fold from current levels and


IT WOULD STILL DO NOTHING

I don't KNOW whether the Earth is measurably warming other than paleoscience suggests that it will warm until the next ice age.

I don't KNOW whether human activity has measurably changed the Earth's climate, but if it has, it certainly has not been very dramatic. I figure close to 8 billion humans on Earth probably do have some environmental impact as do all creatures on Earth.

I do know that our climate has always changed and will continue to change over time just as certainly as the land masses on Planet Earth have always moved about and will continue to do so.

I do know that there could be a few exceptions, but pretty much the ONLY scientists pushing AGW as a serious problem are those whose livelihood, position and/or prestige requires them to push that concept.

I do know I have seen numerous reports of omitted, falsified, skewed, manipulated data supporting AGW. Such reports of those questioning AGW as a problem don't seem to have the same issues with bad data.

I do know they've put out prediction after prediction after prediction of the consequences of AGW, and when each prediction date arrives and goes with nothing unusual happening, they just move the goal posts on down the road and give us a new prediction.

I do know that I don't know of a single politician, media type, scientist, or educator pushing the AGW concept who is living his/her life as if AGW is a problem.

So critical thinking now kicks in.

Seems to me that true public servants would keep studying the environment and our climate and teaching us about it. But their efforts with the people they serve would be far more beneficial and productive if they helped us find ways to adapt to and be able to better accommodate the inevitably changing weather, environment, and climate patterns as they evolve.

 

[EMH]

until the next ice age

The term "ice age" dates back before we understood plate tectonics. The assumption was that land did not move. Glaciation on the southern tip of South America was thought to be "proof" that Antarctic ice was once 10 times what it is now. That is all BS. An ICE AGE is a continent specific event, and this is because ice age glacier does not grow out over ocean, it breaks off. Greenland and Antarctica ARE ICE AGES. The glaciation of South America at the southern tip was because Antarctica and South America were still attached when both broke off from Pangea 120+ million years ago. You can clearly see the visual evidence of the breakup here... from the absolutely shocking "What does Antarctica look like without its ice today" map....

The Greenland vs. North America issue really settles it. Your "ice age" definition is that Earth as a whole warms and cools. THAT is WRONG. It is continent specific, these ice ages, and the ice ages dictate climate because Earth climate is dictated by how much ice it has. More ice = colder, lower oceans, thinner atmosphere etc.

In the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed.

This is North America one million years ago....

When the Vikings first settled Greenland, they called it GREEN land because it was completely green on the southern tip. It is no longer. The Vikings were forced out by the ice age advance in the 1400s. Greenland was a GLOBAL COOLING talking point in the 1970s.

Center of Greenland went from forest to ice age 400-800k years ago...

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

Greenland was once carpeted in lush forests, a new study shows.

www.livescience.com

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.


And the very top of Northern Greenland, where its current ice age originated, was green 2 million years ago....

A 2-million-year-old ecosystem in Greenland uncovered by environmental DNA - Nature

Analysis of two-million-year-old ancient environmental DNA from the Kap København Formation in North Greenland shows there was an open boreal forest with diverse plant and animal species, of which several taxa have not previously been detected at the site, representing an ecosystem that has no...

www.nature.com

And this issue absolutely blows Co2 up completely.


Greenland FROZE while North America THAWED at the SAME TIME....

Co2 outed as NOT THE CAUSE, atmosphere ruled OUT as possible suspect...


What causes a CONTINENT SPECIFIC ICE AGE?

When land moves to within 600 miles of a pole.

What happens?

Annual snowfall ceases to fully melt in the "summer" and hence starts to STACK.. and STACK and 40 million+ years later there is 8 million cubic miles of ice on Antarctica, which hosted dinosaur life 70 million years ago because it was not on the south pole at that time.

 

[EMH]

The billions of trees in the world need CO2 to survive. They in turn give us oxygen. There are enough trees to absorb all of the CO2 in the air. This is a scheme that is sucking us dry.

Janet Yellen at the Glasgow Finance Day Event said that they should be able to pull in between 100 and 150 TRILLION DOLLARS in the next 3 decades. They are gong to completely drain us.

It is all about money and power, and Global Warming is harming the environment, as you say, and by misdiagnosing real problems like fresh water shortages globally, and solutions like desalination get pushed aside because the Co2 fraud is so expensive it "crowds out" real solutions.

Supporters of Global Warming are not friends of Earth or environment. Just the opposite...

 

[BackAgain]

Let’s say that the atmospheric temperature has been rising lately. And let’s say that the measurement of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is notably higher (as trace gasses go) than it was 150 or so years ago.

How is it determined that the rising CO2 in the air hasn’t been caused by the rising temperature rather than the CO2 causing rising temperatures?

Simpletons like apu afuk cannot answer that question. At least Crick seems to have some grasp of the subject matter. But I ask the question because we do know that the rising temperatures have released Earth bound (rock and soil-held) CO2 as when some permafrost melts.

So what makes it the alleged “cause” of higher temperatures rather than being a mere byproduct OF higher temperatures.

 

[EMH]

Let’s say that the atmospheric temperature has been rising lately. And let’s say that the measurement of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is notably higher (as trace gasses go) than it was 150 or so years ago.

How is it determined that the rising CO2 in the air hasn’t been caused by the rising temperature rather than the CO2 causing rising temperatures?

Simpletons like apu afuk cannot answer that question. At least Crick seems to have some grasp of the subject matter. But I ask the question because we do know that the rising temperatures have released Earth bound (rock and soil-held) CO2 as when some permafrost melts.

So what makes it the alleged “cause” of higher temperatures rather than being a mere byproduct OF higher temperatures.

To believe that is to believe these "honest, non conflicted climate "scientists" did an HONEST FUDGE JOB" on the atmospheric numbers. Laughable. The satellite and balloon data was highly correlated. Both showed a cooler than normal atmosphere in 1998 as Bill Clinton first claimed "warmest year ever."

Two and only two measures of atmospheric temps. Satellites and balloons. Both return highly correlated data...

Theory - increasing atmospheric Co2 warms atmosphere

DATA - nope, both show NO WARMING despite rising Co2

THEORY REJECTED


But with hyper politicized "climate science"


There was ORBIT WOBBLE with the satellites - fudge that data HIGHER HIGHER and HIGHER


And the thermometers in the balloons were just wrong = fudge that data HIGHER HIGHER



FRAUD

Conflict of interest


If they admit the truth that Co2 went up and atmospheric temps did not, is there any reason to continue to fund them?

 

[Foxfyre]

The term "ice age" dates back before we understood plate tectonics. The assumption was that land did not move. Glaciation on the southern tip of South America was thought to be "proof" that Antarctic ice was once 10 times what it is now. That is all BS. An ICE AGE is a continent specific event, and this is because ice age glacier does not grow out over ocean, it breaks off. Greenland and Antarctica ARE ICE AGES. The glaciation of South America at the southern tip was because Antarctica and South America were still attached when both broke off from Pangea 120+ million years ago. You can clearly see the visual evidence of the breakup here... from the absolutely shocking "What does Antarctica look like without its ice today" map....

The Greenland vs. North America issue really settles it. Your "ice age" definition is that Earth as a whole warms and cools. THAT is WRONG. It is continent specific, these ice ages, and the ice ages dictate climate because Earth climate is dictated by how much ice it has. More ice = colder, lower oceans, thinner atmosphere etc.

In the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed.

This is North America one million years ago....

When the Vikings first settled Greenland, they called it GREEN land because it was completely green on the southern tip. It is no longer. The Vikings were forced out by the ice age advance in the 1400s. Greenland was a GLOBAL COOLING talking point in the 1970s.

Center of Greenland went from forest to ice age 400-800k years ago...

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

Greenland was once carpeted in lush forests, a new study shows.

www.livescience.com

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.


And the very top of Northern Greenland, where its current ice age originated, was green 2 million years ago....

A 2-million-year-old ecosystem in Greenland uncovered by environmental DNA - Nature

Analysis of two-million-year-old ancient environmental DNA from the Kap København Formation in North Greenland shows there was an open boreal forest with diverse plant and animal species, of which several taxa have not previously been detected at the site, representing an ecosystem that has no...

www.nature.com

And this issue absolutely blows Co2 up completely.


Greenland FROZE while North America THAWED at the SAME TIME....

Co2 outed as NOT THE CAUSE, atmosphere ruled OUT as possible suspect...


What causes a CONTINENT SPECIFIC ICE AGE?

When land moves to within 600 miles of a pole.

What happens?

Annual snowfall ceases to fully melt in the "summer" and hence starts to STACK.. and STACK and 40 million+ years later there is 8 million cubic miles of ice on Antarctica, which hosted dinosaur life 70 million years ago because it was not on the south pole at that time.

Interesting analysis. I am not schooled in paleontological science enough to have more than a rudimentary knowledge of it.


I do know that paleontological scientists report that glacial ('ice age') periods and interglacial periods have come and gone on roughly 100,000 year cycles for at least the past million years. I don't know how long it take tectonic plates to move sufficiently to affect the climate on those areas of Earth.

But I suspect many factors are involved from the asteroid that presumably took out the dinosaurs to unusual sun activity to who knows what? All I know is the scientific record shows that life flourished on Planet Earth when it was considerably warmer over all than now and has survived many 'ice ages.'

It's all very fascinating but I'm pretty sure if they busted we humans back to the stone age, it would have minimal effect, if any, on our climate.

 

[EMH]

I do know that paleontological scientists report that glacial ('ice age') periods and interglacial periods have come and gone on roughly 100,000 year cycles for at least the past million years.

That is all in the past 10 years. They have re-written history to fudge in Co2.

It ends up with Toddster claiming 2.5 mile thick ice in Chicago that originated in northern Canada is only 75k years old...

Try at least 30 million.

In the end, with a huge $$ budget and no real evidence of Co2 doing anything, they "created" "evidence" like these completely bullshit "glacials."

North American thawing while Greenland was freezing blows up the "glacials" completely.


Ice ages really are not fast like in Dennis Quaide's movie. They are, in reality, glacial...

 

[abu afak]

Let’s say....
Simpletons like apu afuk cannot answer that question. At least Crick seems to have some grasp of the subject matter. But I ask the question because we do know that the rising temperatures have released Earth bound (rock and soil-held) CO2 as when some permafrost melts.

So what makes it the alleged “cause” of higher temperatures rather than being a mere byproduct OF higher temperatures.

• Apr 19, 2023
• One of Hundreds of Times in my own words, including recently Blind Boy
• FromtheBackAgain is a 60 IQ little POS who cannot directly respond to or challenge me.

Asked and answered many times by me you Blithering Clocksucker. With this basic post.


Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has Tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time are leading it! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was Not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.


``

 

[abu afak]

Let’s say....
Simpletons like apu afuk cannot answer that question. At least Crick seems to have some grasp of the subject matter. But I ask the question because we do know that the rising temperatures have released Earth bound (rock and soil-held) CO2 as when some permafrost melts.

So what makes it the alleged “cause” of higher temperatures rather than being a mere byproduct OF higher temperatures.

Yes I have Hundreds of times including recently Blind Boy.
Reply 2 with link, and more technical:
PorkedinTheBackAgain.

• Apr 27, 2023

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

How Scientists Know That We Are Responsible for Global Warming​

`