Do you even read the links you copy?
From the abstract:
You're still playing checkers and calling check mate.
Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
From the abstract:
You are drawing a false conclusion
The author stated
And your response is "he wants to turn the planet into a giant greenhouse" Which is absurd and a complete misrepresentation of what the author stated
How can he want to turn the plant into a giant greenhouse if he has already stated that is physically impossible to do
BTW the room you are sitting now likely has a CO2 level a lot closer to 1,000 ppm than the 350 ppm outside
Your lack of critical thinking (any thinking) is once again on display
No larue, kirk said he thought turning the world's climate into a 1000 ppm CO2 greenhouse would be a good thing.
As for the 1000 ppm projection, that is possible.
What you don't understand, amongst so many things, is that feedback mechanisms in the climate mean that warming areas like the permafrost also means releasing carbon trapped there into the atmosphere.
Not that I disagree with you, but how is that exactly??
Because of you and family exhaling CO2's??
No, I take issue with you claiming to be scientific while ignoring the conclusions of the vast majority of the scientific community.
And yes, if you keep trying to claim a weatherman with no academic credentials as a scientific source while ignoring actual scientists, the only description of you is a denier.
Right after he said it was not possible to do
So you mis-represent him and then you try to discredit him
That is all you do and it is the only thing you. Attack peoples character and you somehow think that settles a scientific question?
No what I am describing is logarithmic, look again. What you are describing is linear: 2.3°C for every doubling of co2. Which is of course is plain wrong.
Again, a scientific hypothesis is not determined by a poll
This should have been taught to you in grade 9 & 10 science class
1. I am not ignoring actual scientists I have provided examples of many scientists and their conclusions along with links & graphs they have produced
What you have issue with is you believe I have ignored your prefered scientists
BTW that is not true. Mann, Gavin Schmidt & many others make compelling arguments.
After all how could one make an intelligent determination if one only listened to one side of the story?
BTW Have you read Anthony Watts report ? I would assume you had if you presume to belittle him
What did you think of it? Did you like the pictures? They speak a thousand words
2. Re: The meteorologist. Anthony watts. He & his volunteers took the pictures & he understands the citing standards and why they exist
Do you deny a "weather man is capable of taking pictures and understanding the citing standards"
More importantly do you deny there is a issue with the input data collection for possibly the most important experiment mankind has ever conducted ?
Or are you going to pretend or deny any issues exist because someone told you the debate was over?
The term denier implies a moral superiority or authority you simply do not have
Particularly when it is a scientific hypothesis in question
Kirk said this:
If we burn all fossil fuels available it could eventually lead to levels around 2,000 ppm.
https://www.ecowatch.com/burning-al...17-c-rise-in-arctic-temperatu-1891141305.html
He's an extreme left zealot therefore he has no clue of the concept of critical thought. No different than many of the brain dead lemmings enrolled in university liberal arts programs today.
No , its proven through making predictions based on the hypothesis and measuring the results.
And after 40 years of predictions no other credible alternate hypothesis has come out.
Nothing.
There is no other hypothesis to explain the warming of the planet we are experiencing other than anthropomorphic causation.
Nada.
You got nothing.
Zilch.
Nope, the predictions are really quite fucking good!
From the head of NASA's GISS program.
As repeatedly proved by this chart.
Absolutely false.
There is zero evidence to show that 'natural variability' could possibly be responsible for the 0.8ºC warming the planet has experienced recently.
Here's a chart posted by Bloomberg, with data from NASA.
I know its got animation, but no, its not a cartoon.
It shows all the possible 'natural' causes that could warm the planet and how much they really are warming the planet.
What's really warming the world?
That leaves you back at:
Zero
Zilch
No idea
Nothing
As a bonus, larue, lets take a look at Wallace Broecker's projections from 1975.
He's known as the godfather of global warming, for first coining the term and making the first connections.
Sadly he just died.
'Grandfather of climate science' dead at 87
In 1975, before there was any computer modelling, he made this projection:
Considering we're now at 0.8ºC and he predicted this 40 years ago before much was known, that's pretty outstanding.
Certainly beats every single prediction from your deniers!
He's known as the godfather of global warming, for first coining the term and making the first connections.
Sadly he just died.
'Grandfather of climate science' dead at 87
In 1975, before there was any computer modelling, he made this projection:
Considering we're now at 0.8ºC and he predicted this 40 years ago before much was known, that's pretty outstanding.
Certainly beats every single prediction from your deniers!
https://buffalonews.com/2019/02/18/...of-snow-so-far-this-winter-with-more-to-come/
And those climate bedwetters were telling us snow would be a thing of the past. Tell that to the folks in Buffalo. There's a fair probability Buffalo sees it's highest snowfall since the winter of 2001/2002.
And those climate bedwetters were telling us snow would be a thing of the past. Tell that to the folks in Buffalo. There's a fair probability Buffalo sees it's highest snowfall since the winter of 2001/2002.
Welcome to the new abnormal, Kirk.
How climate change can make catastrophic weather systems linger for longer
https://theconversation.com/how-cli...phic-weather-systems-linger-for-longer-111832
The full article is worth the read.
Its also worth remembering how recent this polar vortex business started coming up.
Keep on trying to dismiss that the vast majority of scientists who actually study climate see human CO2 as a significant player in climate change.
