World to end in 2030.

[Woodznutz]

That the past being 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2 was due entirely to natural conditions, none of which were CO2.

So why would you rule out other causes for our recent warming trend?

I don't. I think the focus is on CO2 because nothing can be done about the other greenhouse gases up there, especially water vapor (although methane can be controlled somewhat but at great cost).

 

[ding]

I don't. I think the focus is on CO2 because nothing can be done about the other greenhouse gases up there, especially water vapor (although methane can be controlled somewhat but at great cost).

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Woodznutz]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

Well, maybe CO2 is a false boogyman, like cholesterol.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Well, you could look up science on that matter. There is no doubt among scientists all around the world that man made climate change is a reality and will have severe consequences. When you do research on the matter without ideological blinders, you'll find that, too.

But when you've decided you better listen to propaganda and/or your gut feelings, rather looking up facts, I doubt I can convince you here.

Could you tell us what your predicted figures for co2 ppm and the height of sea level will need to be for these 'severe consequences'.

Could you also tell us what these severe consequences are and in what time span?

 

[ding]

Well, maybe CO2 is a false boogyman, like cholesterol.

What it is is a false correlation.

 

[ReinyDays]

You really really really really don't want anymore people moving to Oregon.

... we hates you ... we hates you ... we hates you ... gollum ...

 

[Likkmee]

Video presents the possible effects of global warming, sea level rise, and the effect of 'moon wobble' that will occur in 2030. Worth watching.

Why the Moon Could Cause the End of the World By 2030 | Unveiled

Like troof. By 203o Kim K will weigh in at 230 and a wobble of that moon could toss us off axis

 

[Woodznutz]

Like troof. By 203o Kim K will weigh in at 230 and a wobble of that moon could toss us off axis

That will be offset by Kim Jun Un, who will regain his recently lost weight.

 

[westwall]

The scientists claimed that by the year 3,000 the sun will have decayed so much, that it will lack the necessary force to heat the earth, therefore killing everything on it and turning into a wasteland..........therefore shifting the environment to where the earth will start cracking into pieces.

What "scientists"?

 

[Sunsettommy]

... we hates you ... we hates you ... we hates you ... gollum ...

If I meet Smeagol when I move to Eastern Oregon in a couple years, I will tell him about you.

 

[ReinyDays]

If I meet Smeagol when I move to Eastern Oregon in a couple years, I will tell him about you.

Coming down the US-395 Urban Corridor? ... I always thought Greater Metropolitan John Day would be a cool place to live ... you'd think you were in West Texas ... and there's no cooler place in the world to live than West Texas ... God's country ... tomorrow's California ...

 

[percysunshine]

Video presents the possible effects of global warming, sea level rise, and the effect of 'moon wobble' that will occur in 2030. Worth watching.

Why the Moon Could Cause the End of the World By 2030 | Unveiled

The CDC says covid restrictions will not allow the moon to do this.

The moon has been locked down.

 

[Stryder50]

Well, maybe CO2 is a false boogyman, like cholesterol.

Not sure of the cholesterol claim there, but here's some numbers on CO2;

Currently @400 ppm = Parts Per Million.
Expressed as a fraction 400/1,000,000
Fraction reduced per method one should have learned in K-12;
1/2,500

The unproven hypothesis of ACC/AGW is that if the other 2,499 parts of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. are at 70 degrees F, and one introduces the one part CO2 at 75 degrees F into that 2,499, then that 2,499 will increase in temperature by another degree or three.

Does this make logic and realistic sense to you?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Increased precipitation in some areas doesn't end drought in other areas. More snow in the mountains doesn't help the dry plains of Africa. Heavy downpours that cause flooding don't help anyone. Droughts are predicted to get worse globally as global temperatures rise. Droughts also tend to form high pressure areas that actually cause increased rainfall in non-drought areas.

Africa is greening up and the Sahara is shrinking. Thank you climate change!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Seriously dude?

I'd have to give this a STOOPIDEST POST OF THE YEAR nomination.

Progressives routinely tip their hand as the most naive mofu's walking the planet.

But thanks for the tectonics lesson.

Look it up, and shut your cock holster!

 

[Woodznutz]

Not sure of the cholesterol claim there, but here's some numbers on CO2;

Currently @400 ppm = Parts Per Million.
Expressed as a fraction 400/1,000,000
Fraction reduced per method one should have learned in K-12;
1/2,500

The unproven hypothesis of ACC/AGW is that if the other 2,499 parts of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. are at 70 degrees F, and one introduces the one part CO2 at 75 degrees F into that 2,499, then that 2,499 will increase in temperature by another degree or three.

Does this make logic and realistic sense to you?

If you examine my cholesterol reference you'll see why CO2 is the culprit. Arterial clogs are made up of several substances, but cholesterol is the only one that medical science can (has chosen to) deal with, thus cholesterol is the culprit in CAD (coronary artery disease).

Water vapor is likely the biggest culprit causing atmospheric warming. And the warmer it gets the more water vapor it can hold. But because science can't do anything about that they have chosen CO2 as the culprit (we produce lots of it by burning fossil fuels).

But perhaps CO2 is a catalyst in that it warms the atmosphere up just enough to hold a bit more water vapor, which begins a cascading effect up there of yet more water vapor and thus rising temperatures.

 

[Woodznutz]

Africa is greening up and the Sahara is shrinking. Thank you climate change!

Yabut people in drought-stricken regions won't be migrating there anytime soon.

 

[ding]

If you examine my cholesterol reference you'll see why CO2 is the culprit. Arterial clogs are made up of several substances, but cholesterol is the only one that medical science can (has chosen to) deal with, thus cholesterol is the culprit in CAD (coronary artery disease).

Water vapor is likely the biggest culprit causing atmospheric warming. And the warmer it gets the more water vapor it can hold. But because science can't do anything about that they have chosen CO2 as the culprit (we produce lots of it by burning fossil fuels).

But perhaps CO2 is a catalyst in that it warms the atmosphere up just enough to hold a bit more water vapor, which begins a cascading effect up there of yet more water vapor and thus rising temperatures.

Not counting climate fluctuations brought on by orbital forcing, the geologic record is littered with climate fluctuations (up and down) and not one of them was due to CO2. So how is it that you ignore all of that data to arrive at it must be CO2?

 

[ReinyDays]

But perhaps CO2 is a catalyst in that it warms the atmosphere up just enough to hold a bit more water vapor, which begins a cascading effect up there of yet more water vapor and thus rising temperatures.

This is what violates the law ... CO2 is not a catalyst to any of this ... when we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, the equilibrium changes ... changes in equilibrium take time to occur ... thus we are moving towards a new equilibrium point, not any kind of run-away effect ...

Follow the energy ... and follow the laws ...