Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's charming how climate change deniers, with absolutely no training whatsoever in the field, think they know more than climate scientists.
I don't need a Master's in Climate Studies & Meteorology to understand the science, or in the case of climate fanatics, the lack of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donsabi
Climate change is real and coming to a neighborhood near you very soon. You can choose to deny it, burying your head in the sand, but there is no doubt that the temperatures throughout the world are rising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom
Even Marco Rubio agrees that there is GW. There is factual proof of sea level rise, worsening storm events, etc.
Temperatures always rise during an Inter-Glacial Period.
That's why it's called an Inter-Glacial Period.
It is an irrefutable scientific fact that there is nothing unusual, abnormal or unprecedented about global temperatures.
...collectively produced Last Interglacial summer temperature anomalies 4–5 °C above present over most Arctic lands, significantly above the average Northern Hemisphere anomaly.
4°C equals 7.2°F and 5°C equals 9°F.
That's how much warmer it was in the arctic regions of Canada during the last Inter-Glacial Period.
Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.
9°C to 14.5°C warmer is 16.2°F to 26.1°F warmer in eastern Siberia during the last Inter-Glacial Period.
If average global temperatures increase another 7.8°F to 15.3°F above the current 58.4°F average global temperature, the only thing you can say is that this is just another typical Inter-Glacial Period.
Why would you question whether it is caused by humanity, when climate scientists have stated conclusively that it is?
They haven't proven it conclusively.
Scientific proof is only achieved through repeated verification using experimentation.
My claim that combining an Acid with a Base produces water and a salt is just that: a claim.
Unless and until I design an experiment that proves that, it is only claim, and even then, it's still a claim unless you can perform the exact same experiment and achieve the exact same results, and then others must conduct the same experiment and achieve the same results in order for my claim to be validated and verified.
Your vaunted climate scientists can't explain why one Inter-Glacial Period ended abruptly after only 8,000 years; can't even explain why Inter-Glacial Periods happen in the first place; can't explain why Glacial Periods, which were originally only 40,000 years in length grew to last 80,000 years to 120,000 years --- yes, it's called the Mid‐Pleistocene Transition, because after 600,000 years ago Glacial Periods started doubling and tripling in duration; can't explain why some Inter-Glacial Periods last 12,000 years and others last as long as 30,000 years (the longest); can't explain why the last Inter-Glacial Period was as warm as it was; and in fact, can't explain much of anything, except that Glacial and Inter-Glacial Periods do happen.
In fact, climate scientists who swore up and down that Milankovitch Cycles are what caused Glacial and Inter-Glacial Periods now claim it has nothing to do with it, because none of the Inter-Glacial or Glacial Periods match with any of the three facets of the Milankovitch Cycle, and the Milankovitch Cycle can't explain why Glacial Periods which used to average 40,000 years doubled and tripled in length.
Actually, the deniers have lost all their credibility. They are the ones who deny science, without ever understanding what science is.
Are you denying that temperatures can rapidly fluctuate as much as 20°F in a matter of years or decades?
Because if you do, then you are denying science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom
In my lifetime the population has more than doubled. The earth is a finite resource and can only support so many people.
The Earth can easily handle 60 Billion people, but relax, because your population will top out at around 16 Billion to 17 Billion and then flat-line or actually start declining.
I'd explain it, but you probably wouldn't understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now stands at over 410 ppm - the earth has not had so high a concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere since a period roughly 50 million years ago...
You ignore the first 2.5 Billion years when Earth's atmosphere was N2, CO2, Methane and Ammonium Hydrides.
After a couple 100 Million years, the Ammonium Hydrides had precipitated out and the Methane was absorbed, leaving an atmosphere of 74% N2 and 26% CO2 for the next 2.3 Billion years.
During that time, when there was no O2 in the atmosphere, you had two major glaciations creating snow-ball Earths, the Pangolan and the Huronian.
So much for the runaway greenhouse gas effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
This statement is just plain wrong. I don't know where you get it from, but it's simply propaganda. The science shows nothing of the sort. According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
So?
In the last 100,000 years, there have been 24 recorded rapid temperature changes of as much as 20°F in a matter of years or decades.
Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades.
In fact, scientists are just as inclined to be corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, self-serving, or just plain wrong as lawyers, politicians, journalists, religious leaders, business executives or anyone else.
In fact, scientists are just as inclined to be corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, self-serving, or just plain wrong as lawyers, politicians, journalists, religious leaders, business executives or anyone else.
Deny that if you feel like you must.
More so "scientists" that support the IPCC's postmodern bullsh*t know as 'post normal science'... they are activists, not scientists.
Without CO2, virtually all life on Earth will perish, starting with plants, and everything that is dependent on plants for food. Then everything that depends on those creatures will die, and so on.
Human beings would certainly die as well without CO2 on Earth. All of them. CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life on Earth as we know it.
On one hand, we have climate scientists who dedicate their lives to understand the intricacies of how atmospheric conditions effect climate on Earth. On the other, we have deep insights like this. Who to trust? Hard, isn't it?
On one hand, we have climate scientists who dedicate their lives to understand the intricacies of how atmospheric conditions effect climate on Earth. On the other, we have deep insights like this. Who to trust? Hard, isn't it?
Seeing that the "climate scientists" get huge research grants to agree to AGW, hard to trust them, isn't it?
On one hand, we have climate scientists who dedicate their lives to understand the intricacies of how atmospheric conditions effect climate on Earth. On the other, we have deep insights like this. Who to trust? Hard, isn't it?
If someone told you don't eat that...it's deadly poisonous
...and you caught them eating it
Would you believe them?
No one knows the science better than the UN/IPCC...and that's exactly the rules they made
CO2 is deadly poisonous...and the vast majority of countries get to increase their emissions
No one would be able to increase freon, DDT, arsenic, lead, mercury,,,because they are for real
When they start acting like they believe this s c a m....I'll look at it again
In the mean time, don't tell me I have to start eating bugs to save the planet...
..and out of the other side of your mouth say it's ok for other countries to increase emissions until they make as much money as we do
In fact, scientists are just as inclined to be corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, self-serving, or just plain wrong as lawyers, politicians, journalists, religious leaders, business executives or anyone else.
Deny that if you feel like you must.
Thanks for bumping a thread that has been dead for a week with all that great new information!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
