The Climate Change scam

Okay so the Scientists are wrong. There's been no very warm periods and then very cold periods. Its been as flat as a billiard table.

Well done Tank. I'm glad we've cleared that up.
 
Myles O'Reilly said:
Okay so the Scientists are wrong. There's been no very warm periods and then very cold periods. Its been as flat as a billiard table.

Well done Tank. I'm glad we've cleared that up.
Click to expand...
So you are saying you trust the scientific evidence.
What does that evidence say about the causes?
 
Myles O'Reilly said:
Fuck off WINDOW LICKER
Click to expand...
Don't get mad Myles, just try harder

Don't you want be a winner, like me?

Ask Haven to show you the evidence that the alleged one or one point five degrees or whatever it is increase in global average temperature in the last 130 years is due to human activity

He won't be able to show you, other than anecdotal evidence, which isn't evidence a-tall
 
AN2 said:
Don't get mad Myles, just try harder Don't you want be a winner, like me? Ask Haven to show you the evidence that the alleged one or one point five degrees or whatever it is increase in global average temperature in the last 130 years is due to human activity He won't be able to show you, other than anecdotal evidence, which isn't evidence a-tall
Click to expand...
Nobody's talking to you Spastic.

Now do one.
 
Don't mind what I do or don't know.

You're the one claiming that a mere 130 years of data is enough to conclude humans have change the Climate in such a microcosm of time.

Its quite an extraordinary claim
 
Myles O'Reilly said:
Nobody's talking to you Spastic.

Now do one.
Click to expand...
You're just getting angry again

I repeat, the question is - Is human activity causing climate change?

That couldn't have happened thousands or millions of years ago, so that part is irrelevant (unless you want to point out the fact that the climate changes naturally)

Deep breaths Myles, stay focused, I have faith in you...
 
At the end of day, whether you call it global warming or climate change, they (the alarmists) have never really moved on from CO2
 
Well, they also have like the permafrost melting (releasing methane), cow farts and so on but that's about it really

Not convinced
 
AN2 said:
Your question is irrelevant to the question, which is - Is human activity causing climate change?
Click to expand...
Nobody knows, there are plenty who say it is, but, as always, follow the money.

As already noted, the climate changes naturally, we are still emerging from the last ice age and there are ice core records showing that sudden heating is not unusual, but those of course are never granted the publicity that other, more convenient 'records' are given.
 
Haven said:
Great! Lets continue to look at the scientific evidence.

So you dont know the causes yourself for these cool amd warm periods, is that correct?
Click to expand...
Which scientific evidence? That which suits the alarmist camp or that which tells a different story?
 
Myles O'Reilly said:
Don't mind what I do or don't know.

You're the one claiming that a mere 130 years of data is enough to conclude humans have change the Climate in such a microcosm of time.

Its quite an extraordinary claim
Click to expand...
I generally think of the modern climate (rather than the earth itself) as being 3 to 3.5 billion years old as that is when photosynthesis kicked off, producing the oxygen that has allowed higher forms of life to flourish and drastically affecting the atmosphere.

130 years is an idiotically tiny sliver of the earths history to think of as being in any way indicative of one particular factor having an effect.

Reliable thermometers have been around for 200 years max, and even then we have no idea as to the conditions in which these early ones were used, so it is fair to say that trying to construct an accurate record of the earth's climate before 1850/1900 is pure guess work.
 
Mad as Fish said:
I generally think of the modern climate (rather than the earth itself) as being 3 to 3.5 billion years old as that is when photosynthesis kicked off, producing the oxygen that has allowed higher forms of life to flourish and drastically affecting the atmosphere.

130 years is an idiotically tiny sliver of the earths history to think of as being in any way indicative of one particular factor having an effect.

Reliable thermometers have been around for 200 years max, and even then we have no idea as to the conditions in which these early ones were used, so it is fair to say that trying to construct an accurate record of the earth's climate before 1850/1900 is pure guess work.
Click to expand...
The only point I would really think about is the mega tonnages of sequestered carbon burnt in the last century especially.
Deforestation is another huge driver of climate change .
 
jpc said:
The only point I would really think about is the mega tonnages of sequestered carbon burnt in the last century especially.
Deforestation is another huge driver of climate change .
Click to expand...
There is much evidence to suggest that the role of CO2 in atmospheric warming is hugely exaggerated for it is water vapour that has a far greater effect. The interactions between the oceans, water vapour, atmospheric gasses, sunlight etc are still poorly understood no matter how many pretty diagrams and graphs are thrown at us.

The vast majority of carbon sequestrated over the eons is tied up in calciferous rocks such as limestone, far more than in coal or oil. Rock represents the true carbon reserve in the planets crust, OK, coal is a type of rock, but it pales in comparison to limestone formations.

At between 200 and 300 ppm of carbon dioxide plants start to die off, releasing a bit back into the atmosphere is actually beneficial to plant survival and NASA has reported on the greening of the planet in general since CO2 levels have started to rise significantly, they now stand at just over 400ppm.

It could be argued that we are actually saving the planet, and I do.
 
Mad as Fish said:
There is much evidence to suggest that the role of CO2 in atmospheric warming is hugely exaggerated for it is water vapour that has a far greater effect. The interactions between the oceans, water vapour, atmospheric gasses, sunlight etc are still poorly understood no matter how many pretty diagrams and graphs are thrown at us.

The vast majority of carbon sequestrated over the eons is tied up in calciferous rocks such as limestone, far more than in coal or oil. Rock represents the true carbon reserve in the planets crust, OK, coal is a type of rock, but it pales in comparison to limestone formations.

At between 200 and 300 ppm of carbon dioxide plants start to die off, releasing a bit back into the atmosphere is actually beneficial to plant survival and NASA has reported on the greening of the planet in general since CO2 levels have started to rise significantly, they now stand at just over 400ppm.

It could be argued that we are actually saving the planet, and I do.
Click to expand...
Very fair comment on the limestone deposit.
But that's crusades for you.
Mad as Fish said:
There is much evidence to suggest that the role of CO2 in atmospheric warming is hugely exaggerated for it is water vapour that has a far greater effect. The interactions between the oceans, water vapour, atmospheric gasses, sunlight etc are still poorly understood no matter how many pretty diagrams and graphs are thrown at us.

The vast majority of carbon sequestrated over the eons is tied up in calciferous rocks such as limestone, far more than in coal or oil. Rock represents the true carbon reserve in the planets crust, OK, coal is a type of rock, but it pales in comparison to limestone formations.

At between 200 and 300 ppm of carbon dioxide plants start to die off, releasing a bit back into the atmosphere is actually beneficial to plant survival and NASA has reported on the greening of the planet in general since CO2 levels have started to rise significantly, they now stand at just over 400ppm.

It could be argued that we are actually saving the planet, and I do.
Click to expand...
You wonder what "the science " would be saying if the mini ice age was happening?
And historically I believe the correlation between temperatures and co2 isn't great there's quiet a lag.

climatechangedispatch.com

New Study: Higher CO2 Levels Do Not Precede Or Control Temperature Increases

A new study confirms that higher carbon dioxide (CO2) levels do not come before temperature increases, consistent with paleo and solar irradiance datasets.
climatechangedispatch.com climatechangedispatch.com

Here's another intresting take on ice cores


View: https://youtu.be/LmmmgiPha_Y?si=GGohM5kgqEYQAg_k
 
jpc said:
Very fair comment on the limestone deposit.
But that's crusades for you.

You wonder what "the science " would be saying if the mini ice age was happening?
And historically I believe the correlation between temperatures and co2 isn't great there's quiet a lag.

climatechangedispatch.com

New Study: Higher CO2 Levels Do Not Precede Or Control Temperature Increases

A new study confirms that higher carbon dioxide (CO2) levels do not come before temperature increases, consistent with paleo and solar irradiance datasets.
climatechangedispatch.com climatechangedispatch.com

Here's another intresting take on ice cores


View: https://youtu.be/LmmmgiPha_Y?si=GGohM5kgqEYQAg_k
Click to expand...

With regards to the the CO2 lag I have seen it suggested that it is temperature change that drives CO2 levels.

More here on the Ice Core evidence. Rapid temperature fluctuations are nothing new, doubt though that it is the sort of science that Tank wants to talk about.

 

Underwater ‘storms’ are eating away at the Doomsday Glacier. It could have big impacts on sea level rise​


Swirling underwater “storms” are aggressively melting the ice shelves of two vital Antartic Glaciers, with potentially “far-reaching implications” for global sea level rise, according to a recent study.

Antarctica is like a fist with a skinny thumb stuck out toward South America. Pine Island Glacier is near the base of this thumb. Thwaites — known as the Doomsday Glacier because of the devastating impact its demise would have on global sea level rise — sits next to it.

Over the past few decades, these icy giants have experienced rapid melting driven by warming ocean water, especially at the point where they rise from the seabed and come afloat as ice shelves.

uk.yahoo.com

Underwater ‘storms’ are eating away at the Doomsday Glacier. It could have big impacts on sea level rise

Swirling underwater eddies are aggressively melting two Antarctic glaciers, a recent study found, including the one that could raise sea levels by multiple feet.
uk.yahoo.com uk.yahoo.com
 
Myles O'Reilly said:

Underwater ‘storms’ are eating away at the Doomsday Glacier. It could have big impacts on sea level rise​


Swirling underwater “storms” are aggressively melting the ice shelves of two vital Antartic Glaciers, with potentially “far-reaching implications” for global sea level rise, according to a recent study.

Antarctica is like a fist with a skinny thumb stuck out toward South America. Pine Island Glacier is near the base of this thumb. Thwaites — known as the Doomsday Glacier because of the devastating impact its demise would have on global sea level rise — sits next to it.

Over the past few decades, these icy giants have experienced rapid melting driven by warming ocean water, especially at the point where they rise from the seabed and come afloat as ice shelves.

uk.yahoo.com

Underwater ‘storms’ are eating away at the Doomsday Glacier. It could have big impacts on sea level rise

Swirling underwater eddies are aggressively melting two Antarctic glaciers, a recent study found, including the one that could raise sea levels by multiple feet.
uk.yahoo.com uk.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
The most total and utter BS! The Antarctic is actually piling on the ice, something which none of those oh so clever models predicted!

 

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Back
Top Bottom