The Questions that Global Warming Concerned People have Not Answered in this Forum

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That Obama estate is super close to the ocean. And also his mansion in the East of the USA is really close to the ocean. Does it make sense he of all people would take such risks?

His wife is pretty stupid, so…

 

[Robert W]

His wife is pretty stupid, so…

I would believe they made a joint decision.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I would believe they made a joint decision.

She’s a lot bigger than he is.

 

[Robert W]

She’s a lot bigger than he is.

Does she have the deeper voice?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I don't understand why these questions are so hard. If you have missed them thus far, they are:

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?
2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?
3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?
4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?
5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

If you cannot answer each of these questions, with evidence, not just guesses or links, then any policy you advocate based on "global warming" have no basis in evidence.

1) It was rising since around 1700 long before CO2 started rising which begun in the 1880's thus the warming trend went on for around 185 years. which was simply a recovery from the LIA phase.

2) Negligible because it was warming for nearly 2 centuries while CO2 sat on its ass, and for 10,000 years of large temperature swings while CO2 was sitting around the 260-280 ppm line in all those years here is a nice Chart made by C3 headlines:

LINK

No visible relationship between CO2 and temperature changes during the interglacial period.

========

Co2 warm forcing is mostly done in the first 100 ppm level then rapidly declining after that to near zero at the 430-ppm level and close to saturation levels:

LINK to a recently published science paper.

Since it has been over 180+ ppm for several 100 million years there has been little change in warm forcing input ever since as most of it was already generated in the first 100 ppm with quick decline afterwards which was done about a BILLION years ago thus CO2 warm forcing effects is negligible over 200 ppm levels.


===========


3) Not necessary.

4) Not needed as there is no evidence of any developing Climate Emergency anywhere as by baseline data as shown very well in this article:

Where is the Climate Emergency?

LINK

================

This entire climate change propaganda has been promulgated by governments and the scientists in and out of the biased meta-analysis IPCC who are dominantly on government payroll are the dominant pushers of the climate change baloney which is why their position is so easily shown to be a SCAM!

There has been NO climate change in most of the world certainty none in my region during the entire Holocene as shown by the Koppen Climate Classification index which mine is BSk

LINK


It is the SUN/Ocean Dynamo that is dominating the weather processes we live though.

I am now reading a nice Book by Javier Vinos

Solving the Climate Puzzle The Sun's surprising role

LINK

 

[abu afak]

A Repeat (5, 10?) of an Irrelevant from the SunsetMommy fake chjart stash.
It's good if you live under 2 miles Greenland ice and want to wait a few hundred/thousand years for it to catch up to the Air/Surface temperature!

• Apr 24, 2024

Here is a post showing a chart based on the GISP ice core data,


The historical record also indicates that temperatures fluctuate up and down without any relationship to the CO2 level. (click on image to enlarge)


View attachment 937387


LINK

Your chart stops under 400 PPM. it's old and on a CONSPIRACY Website (C3) which cites a non-working link.
We are at 425 PPM.
We are at THEE Warmest since the last Interglacial. (100,000 years ago)

SunsetMommy is DISHONEST. (like ding)
His blog has a Thousand deceptive charts to abuse.

You remember MARCOTT don't you, you Deceptive ahole?
You used him Right?

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We are at THEE Warmest since the last Interglacial. (100,000 years ago)

Post your evidence.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?
2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?
3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?
4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?
5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

1. Yes.

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

2. No. And I do not think anyone has said it was humans, and humans alone.

3. None. There is no stopping it if we are the cause. The solution is to prepare for the changes and take advantage of the good changes and mitigate the damage from the bad.

4. See 3

5. See 3

 

[ReinyDays]

... SunsetMommy is DISHONEST. (like ding) ...

They're using Stefan-Boltzmann's Law ... irradiation is proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power ... which relationship are you using? ... you gain nothing with logarithms ...

S'Tommy's right ... it's called "quantum saturation" ... one photon, one molecule ... and there's no where close to enough carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere to effect thermometer readings at the world's airports ... that's ± 0.5ºC in case you didn't know ...

1ºC is laughably small ...

 

[abu afak]

They're using Stefan-Boltzmann's Law ... irradiation is proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power ... which relationship are you using? ... you gain nothing with logarithms ...

S'Tommy's right ... it's called "quantum saturation" ... one photon, one molecule ... and there's no where close to enough carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere to effect thermometer readings at the world's airports ... that's ± 0.5ºC in case you didn't know ...

1ºC is laughably small ...

You Physics Terms Dropping A$$hole
You try so hard to ambiguate/name drop your posts are Incoherent.
But the mechanics of AGW are quite simple to understand and their effect is born out by the global rise (in Temp/GHGs) over time.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You Physics Terms Dropping A$$hole
You try so hard to ambiguate/name drop your posts are Incoherent.
But the mechanics of AGW are quite simple to understand and their effect is born out by the global rise (in Temp/GHGs) over time.

`

$76 trillion!!!

 

[Robert W]

Post your evidence.

Notice these fools constantly deal in just temperature. When for a fact Clouds make up by far most of the climate drivers. Clouds cover a huge part of Earth and CO2 is so tiny it measures in million parts. This is for extremely tiny particles.

 

[ReinyDays]

You Physics Terms Dropping A$$hole
You try so hard to ambiguate/name drop your posts are Incoherent.
But the mechanics of AGW are quite simple to understand and their effect is born out by the global rise (in Temp/GHGs) over time.

`

Oh ... I'm sorry ... I forgot you hate college science ... and high school math ... j*=oT^4 ... wheat them and reap ...

 

[Robert W]

You Physics Terms Dropping A$$hole
You try so hard to ambiguate/name drop your posts are Incoherent.
But the mechanics of AGW are quite simple to understand and their effect is born out by the global rise (in Temp/GHGs) over time.

`

Climate is so much more than Temperature and that is part of the reason your posts are always debunked.

 

[jc456]

So which is it ... PROOF or EVIDENCE ??? ... because there's plenty of evidence of man-kind causing global warming* ... but that's not scientific proof ... not until the math is settled ... "what's the numerical relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and SB's emissivity ratio?" ...

cool let's see it!

 

[jc456]

Sounds like you're reducing your sample pool to drive up percentages ... the average temperature between 1880 and 1950 is 1ºC lower than the average between 1950 and 2020 ... any averages less than this ∆t = 70 years would be contaminated by dynamic factors ... many of these factors we do not understand and cannot reliably predict ... for example El Nino and sunspots ...

what does that actually mean?

 

[ReinyDays]

cool let's see it!

Put a thermometer in the middle of the parking lot ... and one in the near-by expanse of grass ... same weather, different temperatures ...

Evidence of AGW, not proof ...

what does that actually mean?

It's math ... c.f. the Monty Hall Problem ...

 

[jc456]

Put a thermometer in the middle of the parking lot ... and one in the near-by expanse of grass ... same weather, different temperatures ...

Evidence of AGW, not proof ...

you have no idea that the sand or dirt that was there before would have had the same effect. So no, you don't.

 

[ReinyDays]

you have no idea that the sand or dirt that was there before would have had the same effect. So no, you don't.

Maybe you don't ... east of the Mississippi River, it was forestlands before humans ... cooler than black asphalt ...

Does it hurt to be wrong? ... in science it shouldn't ...

 

[jc456]

Maybe you don't ... east of the Mississippi River, it was forestlands before humans ... cooler than black asphalt ...

Does it hurt to be wrong? ... in science it shouldn't ...

When one must be right