U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

[otto105]

According to your sun god we should be in a minimun cycle now.

So, why are we warming?

According to SSDD, as far as I can make out, the CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere has made the atmosphere heavier which is making it compress and warm up. The numbers don't work out, but that is because scientists set this hoax up long ago and lied about the relative mass of the air and CO2 and the actual value of absolute zero. Einstein and Planck were in on it and all the scientists on the planet have been getting paid off by a secret trust fund that the liberal commie FDR set up to pay them off till such time as the American economy could be destroyed and the Russkies could just walk in and take our women.

Zazdarovje!

So FDR is responsible for the climate change that you don't believe because of politics?


Its best to keep your mouth shut, than to open it and prove you're ignorant.

 

[otto105]

My pleasure.

On the causal structure between CO₂ and global temperature

give me the abstract that proves it. BTW, Causal isn't proof. observation is. so post the abstract of observation.

And then there is this zinger:

" typically climate models are used to predict the expected responses to external forcing and then the consistency of this response pattern is evaluated with respect to different components of the climate system1."

Do you know the difference between model and observed? no you don't, it was rhetorical.

And what do you observe at 411ppm in regard to warming?

CO2 Levels Break Another Record, Exceeding 411 Parts Per Million

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

so what is the temperature of 280PPM of CO2 and what is the temperature of 411PPM? can you answer that? rhetorical question I know.

The planet passed 280ppm in the 1940's, just look at the graph from NASA regarding temperature.

Which direction is it going?

so which is warmer, 280ppm or 411ppm? you didn't answer. why do you think 411ppm is warmer than 280ppm?

Have you ever read a graph?

Did you skip science in high school for a job sweeping the floor at a barber shop?

What was the temperature in the shop? Did communist Ghina ever get discussed ever in this barber shop?

 

[jc456]

give me the abstract that proves it. BTW, Causal isn't proof. observation is. so post the abstract of observation.

And then there is this zinger:

" typically climate models are used to predict the expected responses to external forcing and then the consistency of this response pattern is evaluated with respect to different components of the climate system1."

Do you know the difference between model and observed? no you don't, it was rhetorical.

And what do you observe at 411ppm in regard to warming?

CO2 Levels Break Another Record, Exceeding 411 Parts Per Million

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

so what is the temperature of 280PPM of CO2 and what is the temperature of 411PPM? can you answer that? rhetorical question I know.

The planet passed 280ppm in the 1940's, just look at the graph from NASA regarding temperature.

Which direction is it going?

so which is warmer, 280ppm or 411ppm? you didn't answer. why do you think 411ppm is warmer than 280ppm?

Have you ever read a graph?

Did you skip science in high school for a job sweeping the floor at a barber shop?

What was the temperature in the shop? Did communist Ghina ever get discussed ever in this barber shop?

I went to school, and when I was asked a question, I answered. It seems it is you who didn't make it through school since you don't answer questions. Proving that you have no clue to what you're talking about. bazinga.

 

[Markle]

So Global Warming isn’t a problem anymore?

Great I can tell Maimi to stop all flooding mitigation efforts.

IF "Global Warming" is causing Miami to flood, why is not every other city in the world, on the banks of the Atlantic Ocean flooding? How does the Atlantic Ocean only rising around Miami?

Fifty years ago I lived in Miami and in the late sixties, I lived in Key West. What was flooding in Miami Beach, and Key West then is still flooding. If Miami is flooding, how is Key West, and most of the Keys not underwater?

 

[Markle]

The planet passed 280ppm in the 1940's, just look at the graph from NASA regarding temperature.

Which direction is it going?

What percentage does CO2 make up of our entire atmosphere?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is it that keeps the solar wind from blowing the atmosphere away, Gorilla Glue?

The magnetosphere protects the planet from charged particles. The ionosphere protects it from radiation.

https://www.quora.com/Are-the-solar-winds-stripping-away-Earths-atmosphere-and-if-so-at-what-rate

Solar wind stripping has probably been overestimated as a mechanism for atmospheric loss. It’s true that Mars has no magnetic field and it now has a very thin atmosphere, but it’s also true that Venus has a much weaker field than Earth’s field and it has a very dense atmosphere.

But Venus HAS a magnetic field, right? The Moon does not, neither does Mars, neither of which have an atmosphere

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Global Warming is a tool for corrupt left wing politicans to loot the taxpayers.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch is most assuredly a scientific argument - one that you have never brought one iota of science to counter. And consensus means a great deal - it is patently obvious why deniers always say it doesn't - because they've never had it and never will. When less than one percent of practicing scientists agree with your position, it REALLY is time to consider the possibility that you might be WRONG.

Havent you been keeping up ?
its to late to do anything
I mean the science was already settled
June 29, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
How could you possibly argue with A senior UN official who is listening to the "science"
you cant do anything
NOT even paper straws can save YOU NOW

you cant really argue with a true believer
at times their faith can be downright fanatical .
watermelon fascists
derp

Your reply has nothing to do with anything I posted - it is snide drivel - and certainly no counter to my claim that deniers here do not bring science into the argument. The IPCC reports are the best assessments of the climate science literature.

YOU are the one that seems to be arguing from a position based solely on faith.

actually it does
they really are culture-less humorless homogenized dumbed down retards
but at least they can spell derp derp derp derp derp

wait .... are you telling me that you don't know the IPCC was formed by the UN and the WMO?
and that their first "official "report was released to the general public only moths later from June 1989?AND THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEM ? THAT ITS ALREADY TO LATE TO DO ANYTHING

if you don't believe the predictions from 1989 what makes you believe anything else they say ?

I have figured out how to end the "Never ending drought "conditions in California and return snow to jolly ol England...cough i mean pakistan jr,
wanna know how ?

Im going to give everybody guaranteed incomes
that'll do it

up next Patrick Moore was not a founding member of green peace
cause social engineers disguised as caring stewards of the environment would never lie.

why would anyone lie to you ? think they have an agenda ? nooooo couldn't be



I bring up the social engineering because in the past UN officials (members of the ipcc) have come out and said
its not really about climate its about social engineering
one in particular broad i remember well except I forget her name .. so not that well but she blurted it
Im pretty sure it was at one of their taxpayer funded party ....cough i mean serious scientific consensus meetings on how to enslave....i mean save da woild roflmao

we call you watermelons for a reason ya brain washed morons

 

[Crick]

are you saying CO2 makes the surface warmer? how? explain it. where's that experiment that shows CO2 warmer than the air.

My pleasure.

On the causal structure between CO₂ and global temperature

give me the abstract that proves it. BTW, Causal isn't proof. observation is. so post the abstract of observation.

And then there is this zinger:

" typically climate models are used to predict the expected responses to external forcing and then the consistency of this response pattern is evaluated with respect to different components of the climate system1."

Do you know the difference between model and observed? no you don't, it was rhetorical.

And what do you observe at 411ppm in regard to warming?

CO2 Levels Break Another Record, Exceeding 411 Parts Per Million

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

so what is the temperature of 280PPM of CO2 and what is the temperature of 411PPM? can you answer that? rhetorical question I know.

The planet passed 280ppm in the 1940's, just look at the graph from NASA regarding temperature.

Which direction is it going?

Actually...

the planet passed 280 ppm in 1780. It is the standard pre-industrial level. By the 1940s the planet was over 300 ppm.

 

[Markle]

My pleasure.

On the causal structure between CO₂ and global temperature

give me the abstract that proves it. BTW, Causal isn't proof. observation is. so post the abstract of observation.

And then there is this zinger:

" typically climate models are used to predict the expected responses to external forcing and then the consistency of this response pattern is evaluated with respect to different components of the climate system1."

Do you know the difference between model and observed? no you don't, it was rhetorical.

And what do you observe at 411ppm in regard to warming?

CO2 Levels Break Another Record, Exceeding 411 Parts Per Million

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

so what is the temperature of 280PPM of CO2 and what is the temperature of 411PPM? can you answer that? rhetorical question I know.

The planet passed 280ppm in the 1940's, just look at the graph from NASA regarding temperature.

Which direction is it going?

Actually...

the planet passed 280 ppm in 1780. It is the standard pre-industrial level. By the 1940s the planet was over 300 ppm.

What percentage of our atmosphere is made up of CO2?

 

[jc456]

My pleasure.

On the causal structure between CO₂ and global temperature

give me the abstract that proves it. BTW, Causal isn't proof. observation is. so post the abstract of observation.

And then there is this zinger:

" typically climate models are used to predict the expected responses to external forcing and then the consistency of this response pattern is evaluated with respect to different components of the climate system1."

Do you know the difference between model and observed? no you don't, it was rhetorical.

And what do you observe at 411ppm in regard to warming?

CO2 Levels Break Another Record, Exceeding 411 Parts Per Million

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

so what is the temperature of 280PPM of CO2 and what is the temperature of 411PPM? can you answer that? rhetorical question I know.

The planet passed 280ppm in the 1940's, just look at the graph from NASA regarding temperature.

Which direction is it going?

Actually...

the planet passed 280 ppm in 1780. It is the standard pre-industrial level. By the 1940s the planet was over 300 ppm.

did humans exist back then? you never answered my question on another thread. you claim that all of the 280 was natural. So man didn't breath or have fires back in 1780? I'm still looking for your answer twat breath.

Also, is there a difference in the temperature of CO2 at 280ppm or 411ppm? I expect you won't answer that either.

 

[Crick]

did humans exist back then? you never answered my question on another thread. you claim that all of the 280 was natural. So man didn't breath or have fires back in 1780? I'm still looking for your answer twat breath.

Also, is there a difference in the temperature of CO2 at 280ppm or 411ppm? I expect you won't answer that either.

Did humans exist in 1780? Yes they did. Homo Sapiens appeared roughly 200,000 years ago.

I have never stated that 280 ppm was natural. I have repeatedly stated that virtually every molecule of CO2 ABOVE the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion. Normal metabolism and burning wood do not involve the combustion of fossil fuels.

The equilibrium temperature of the Earth's atmosphere with 411 ppm CO2 is higher than the equilibrium temperature of the Earth's atmosphere with 280 ppm. Per the IPCC

The increase in radiative forcing factors between 1750 and 2011 produced 2.29 Wm^-2 warming.

 

[jc456]

did humans exist back then? you never answered my question on another thread. you claim that all of the 280 was natural. So man didn't breath or have fires back in 1780? I'm still looking for your answer twat breath.

Also, is there a difference in the temperature of CO2 at 280ppm or 411ppm? I expect you won't answer that either.

Did humans exist in 1780? Yes they did. Homo Sapiens appeared roughly 200,000 years ago.

I have never stated that 280 ppm was natural. I have repeatedly stated that virtually every molecule of CO2 ABOVE the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion. Normal metabolism and burning wood do not involve the combustion of fossil fuels.

The equilibrium temperature of the Earth's atmosphere with 411 ppm CO2 is higher than the equilibrium temperature of the Earth's atmosphere with 280 ppm. Per the IPCC

The increase in radiative forcing factors between 1750 and 2011 produced 2.29 Wm^-2 warming.

QUOTE="Crick, post: 21943593, member: 48966"]

About .001% of the atmosphere is manmade CO2.
In effect it's nothing.[/QUOTE]

You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.

If you think that's nothing, what do you think would be the results if that CO2 were replaced with dioxin? How about plutonium oxide? Mercury? Would any of those be acceptable to you? So, if those materials can present risks at that level, what makes you think CO2 cannot?

The denier practice of arguing that small amounts of a thing cannot be harmful is ignorance preying on ignorance.

She would be stoned or thrown off a rooftop in her own shithole country.

If you think the United States is such a shithole, you should kindly get the fuck out.

[/QUOTE]

You're off by more than a factor of ten. Current CO2 levels are 411 ppm. Pre-industrial were 280 ppm. Human emissions total 131 ppm. That
equals 0.0131%.

 

[Crick]

To whom are you speaking? I never saw any question about the percentage increase in CO2. And if you did, it would surely have been viewed as rhetorical.

And what the fuck is this:

She would be stoned or thrown off a rooftop in her own shithole country.

If you think the United States is such a shithole, you should kindly get the fuck out.

 

[jc456]

To whom are you speaking? I never saw any question about the percentage increase in CO2. And if you did, it would surely have been viewed as rhetorical.

who are you talking to and about what?

 

[Crick]

Not you I guess.

 

[SSDD]

My pleasure.

On the causal structure between CO₂ and global temperature

give me the abstract that proves it. BTW, Causal isn't proof. observation is. so post the abstract of observation.

And then there is this zinger:

" typically climate models are used to predict the expected responses to external forcing and then the consistency of this response pattern is evaluated with respect to different components of the climate system1."

Do you know the difference between model and observed? no you don't, it was rhetorical.

And what do you observe at 411ppm in regard to warming?

CO2 Levels Break Another Record, Exceeding 411 Parts Per Million

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

so what is the temperature of 280PPM of CO2 and what is the temperature of 411PPM? can you answer that? rhetorical question I know.

The planet passed 280ppm in the 1940's, just look at the graph from NASA regarding temperature.

Which direction is it going?

Actually...

the planet passed 280 ppm in 1780. It is the standard pre-industrial level. By the 1940s the planet was over 300 ppm.

You never tire of expressing your ignorance do you? If you had any idea of how easily you are fooled, you would run hide in humiliation

This graph is the product of over 90,000 actual measurements of atmospheric CO2...this graph wasn't produced by people with an agenda...it was produced by scientists who just wanted to know what percentage of the gas was in the atmosphere..and it wasn't measured from the top of a volcano...

And by the way...chemical measurement is far more accurate than spectrographic measurement...

 

[SSDD]

did humans exist back then? you never answered my question on another thread. you claim that all of the 280 was natural. So man didn't breath or have fires back in 1780? I'm still looking for your answer twat breath.

Also, is there a difference in the temperature of CO2 at 280ppm or 411ppm? I expect you won't answer that either.

Did humans exist in 1780? Yes they did. Homo Sapiens appeared roughly 200,000 years ago.

I have never stated that 280 ppm was natural. I have repeatedly stated that virtually every molecule of CO2 ABOVE the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm is the result of fossil fuel combustion. Normal metabolism and burning wood do not involve the combustion of fossil fuels.

The equilibrium temperature of the Earth's atmosphere with 411 ppm CO2 is higher than the equilibrium temperature of the Earth's atmosphere with 280 ppm. Per the IPCC

The increase in radiative forcing factors between 1750 and 2011 produced 2.29 Wm^-2 warming.

All models...none of which is supported by any observed measured evidence...all bullshit all the time with you, isn't it skidmark...

 

[Crick]

SSDD
1) Models are just fine when you need them and any time you're attempting to predict the future behavior of a complex system, you will need a model. There is no other way.
2) Models take real-world data (ie empirical observations) as input. You act as if they're completely disconnected.
3) The measurement of CO2 levels from 1780 was accomplished by the analysis of trapped gases and proxy data. It did not make use of models
4) The analysis of current CO2 to see how much was produced by fossil fuel combustion did not make use of models.
5) The contention that an increase in GHG levels in the atmosphere increases the Earth's equilibrium temperature did not make use of models.
6) The radiative forcing factor graphic from AR5 did not make use of models.

So, fuck off troll.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hate to fubar the whole thread but............