This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[BULLDOG]

No. I think a detailed study of the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record does.

And where do you come up with the knowledge to accurately evaluate complex algorithms that have taken years to develop? Which web site gives you the equivalent of years of study?

 

[BULLDOG]

You mean like how the landmass distribution on at the poles led to different glaciation thresholds at each pole and determines the extent that glaciation can spread?

Do you even have a high school diploma? Because maybe you aren’t capable of understanding what drives the climate of the planet because it sure isn’t the atmosphere.

So now you think graduating high school and your web search is enough to qualify you to competently reject the work of experts who have invested years in their career. That mut be one hell of a web site you got there. Please give me the link.

 

[BULLDOG]

If CO2 is so important in driving the climate of the planet then why did the planet cool for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm?

You keep spouting points about climate change as if you think they should impress me. So far, you have only offered your instant internet expert degree to show you have any credibility, or if you're just spouting crap from fringe sources. I freely admit I don't have the knowledge needed to evaluate your claims. Further, you have given no reason to believe you do either. Should I believe the scientific community or some anonymous nut bag who is as much concerned about the political implications of his claims as he is the actual climate discussion. I'll go with the scientific community.

 

[Delldude]

We may be too late to change course.

Tell us exactly what needs to be done to 'change course'.

You forgot to mention this:

The underwater eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai volcano in the Pacific Ocean in January 2022 sent an unprecedented amount of water vapor high into Earth's stratosphere.

Here's why this is significant:

Largest Underwater Explosion Recorded: The eruption was the largest underwater explosion ever recorded by modern scientific instruments.

Massive Water Vapor Injection: It blasted enormous amounts of water vapor and volcanic gases higher than any other eruption in the satellite era. Scientists estimate around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor were sent into the stratosphere, according to NASA. This is equivalent to about 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer.

Unusual Climate Impact: Unlike many large volcanic eruptions that cause global cooling due to sulfur dioxide creating aerosols that reflect sunlight, the Hunga Tonga eruption released much less sulfur dioxide.

 

[Redfish]

MSN

While there are varying meteorological forces behind this month’s extreme rainfall, what has connected them all is significant amounts of atmospheric moisture pulsing above the country.

It is flowing from abnormally warm oceans across the Northern Hemisphere that are likely to stretch elevated flood risks into August, data shows — perhaps into record territory. The conditions are allowing plumes of tropical moisture to stretch into middle latitudes and stagnate there, sending flood risks surging and exemplifying a critical consequence of rising global temperatures that researchers have been predicting and tracking for decades.

Scientist have been warning for decades about climate change. As oceans warm, the added moisture in the atmosphere will lead to more super storms. The repub party has called it lies and propped up their "experts" to refute the science. We can expect to see extreme weather episodes going forward and that will lead to more loss of life and property. Insurance rates are already skyrocketing in parts of the country where these weather extremes are prevalent. We may be too late to change course.

it's called weather, dingleberry. it is constantly changing and has been for hundreds of millions of years, and we have never had anything to do with it.

 

[EMH]

Should I believe the scientific community or

is a confession that you

1. are an absolute science invalid
2. "truth" to you is WHO SHOULD I PARROT WITHOUT HAVING A CLUE ON THE SUBJECT
3. are impressed with titles and quantity of liars, not actual science


even though you are right to ignore dung, she is a taxpayer funded "Faux Skeptic" and her job is to con Americans into believing there is warming even as the data proves there is not...

 

[BULLDOG]

is a confession that you

1. are an absolute science invalid
2. "truth" to you is WHO SHOULD I PARROT WITHOUT HAVING A CLUE ON THE SUBJECT
3. are impressed with titles and quantity of liars, not actual science


even though you are right to ignore dung, she is a taxpayer funded "Faux Skeptic" and her job is to con Americans into believing there is warming even as the data proves there is not...

Not true. I have a modicum of knowledge on the subject. As much as you can learn by paying attention to credible sources, and a little research on the subject. I'm sure I know as much or more than the nutbags spouting questionable data from questionable sources in an effort to prove the opinion of the vast number of climate scientists wrong. I know I will never have enough experience to tackle that chore. The crazy cult members are not self aware enough to make that determination. Why don't you just admit that your opposition to the scientific consensus is driven more by politics than actual evaluation of the data?

 

[EMH]

Why don't you just admit that your opposition to the scientific consensus is driven more by politics than actual evaluation of the data?

LOL!!!

No, the "scientific consensus" cannot refute one word of my posts, not one.

They cannot even answer 5 basic climate questions, because to do so is to admit CO2 is not the cause of Earth climate change.



There really ought to be a new law.

If you are an ACTIVIST for a CAUSE for more than 5 years, and the cause turns out to be complete BS, you get

DEATH AND TOTAL ASSET FORFEITURE


because you have proven yourself to be a toxic sub human treasonous liability to America.

 

[BULLDOG]

LOL!!!

No, the "scientific consensus" cannot refute one word of my posts, not one.

They cannot even answer 5 basic climate questions, because to do so is to admit CO2 is not the cause of Earth climate change.



There really ought to be a new law.

If you are an ACTIVIST for a CAUSE for more than 5 years, and the cause turns out to be complete BS, you get

DEATH AND TOTAL ASSET FORFEITURE


because you have proven yourself to be a toxic sub human treasonous liability to America.

Perhaps you should be arguing your case to the majority of climate scientists, instead of as some anonymous goober on a silly discussion board.. I'm sure it would be easy for someone with your credentials to get a hearing. Your instant internet expert degree will take you far.

 

[EMH]

Perhaps you should be arguing your case to the majority of climate scientists

LOL!!!!

The Silence of US President Obama on Climate Change-A Serious Ethical Lapse?

Editor’s note on the following entry. On the very day that the following entry was posted, President Obama mentioned climate change for the first time in a long time in a speech at the Unive…

ethicsandclimate.org

homO actually handed them the case after deciding to HIDE IT IN THE CLOSET in 2012... knowing full well they couldn't refute one word of it... and presto, "Milankovich Cycles" appears, just as easily refuted in court as all the rest has been...


And yea, a CASE, we HAD THAT TOO...


in 2007 WE DID GO TO COURT...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

[BULLDOG]

LOL!!!!

The Silence of US President Obama on Climate Change-A Serious Ethical Lapse?

Editor’s note on the following entry. On the very day that the following entry was posted, President Obama mentioned climate change for the first time in a long time in a speech at the Unive…

ethicsandclimate.org

homO actually handed them the case after deciding to HIDE IT IN THE CLOSET in 2012... knowing full well they couldn't refute one word of it... and presto, "Milankovich Cycles" appears, just as easily refuted in court as all the rest has been...


And yea, a CASE, we HAD THAT TOO...


in 2007 WE DID GO TO COURT...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

You're upset about discrepancies in a film?

 

[EMH]

You're upset about discrepancies in a film?

LOL!!!

Antarctica is 90% of Earth ice....

90% of Earth ice was COURT CERTIFIED as INCREASING....

Your IQ < 5

 

[DukeU]

Tell that to Venus — without its CO₂-rich atmosphere, it would be about -40°C instead of 462°C. That’s what CO₂ does. Satellite and balloon data don’t disprove this — they confirm it.

Venus?

These so called "smart people" don't have a clue about conditions on Earth and you actually believe they can tell you about the weather on Venus?

If these people know so much why didn't they postpone their trip?

 

[ding]

And where do you come up with the knowledge to accurately evaluate complex algorithms that have taken years to develop? Which web site gives you the equivalent of years of study?

You don’t need complex algorithms. You can see where glaciation occurred at each pole from the oxygen isotope curve which is the proxy for the temperature record of the planet. And it’s common knowledge that ocean currents establish climate by transporting heat. Just like it’s common knowledge that the Arctic would glaciate if that heat transport were disrupted.

 

[ding]

So now you think graduating high school and your web search is enough to qualify you to competently reject the work of experts who have invested years in their career. That mut be one hell of a web site you got there. Please give me the link.

I think your willful ignorance to investigate these things for yourself leaves you exposed. You have no business discussing things you don’t understand and have made no effort to understand.

 

[ding]

You keep spouting points about climate change as if you think they should impress me. So far, you have only offered your instant internet expert degree to show you have any credibility, or if you're just spouting crap from fringe sources. I freely admit I don't have the knowledge needed to evaluate your claims. Further, you have given no reason to believe you do either. Should I believe the scientific community or some anonymous nut bag who is as much concerned about the political implications of his claims as he is the actual climate discussion. I'll go with the scientific community.

I have no need to impress someone who has made no effort to understand the thing he is discussing.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don’t need complex algorithms. You can see where glaciation occurred at each pole from the oxygen isotope curve which is the proxy for the temperature record of the planet. And it’s common knowledge that ocean currents establish climate by transporting heat. Just like it’s common knowledge that the Arctic would glaciate if that heat transport were disrupted.

I get it now. There is no need to spend all those years of study, That amazing Instant Internet Expert degree is just as good. Thank for the info.

 

[ding]

I get it now. There is no need to spend all those years of study, That amazing Instant Internet Expert degree is just as good. Thank for the info.

Apparently you aren’t getting it. Studying the empirical climate evidence from the geologic record and understanding why abrupt changes have been occurring for the past 3 million years is the best way to understand what will happen in the future.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think your willful ignorance to investigate these things for yourself leaves you exposed. You have no business discussing things you don’t understand and have made no effort to understand.

That's why I don't bother spouting charts and graphs like you do. It's an interesting subject, and I do read up on it occasionally, but I know I'll never be knowledgeable enough to second guess the experts who have earned their credentials. Unless you can give me reason to believe otherwise, I don't think you will be either. When given the choice to believe either the credentialled experts in the field, or some unqualified anonymous poster on the internet, I'll go with the experts every time.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have no need to impress someone who has made no effort to understand the thing he is discussing.

That's good because you haven't impressed me.