I'm not like you I don't make things up. Those quotes are legitimate do a google search if you want. Oh and desmogblog, skepticalscience, the Guardian are not legit sources.
Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
Funny that a couple posts ago you were saying he was reliable because of his credentials. Now you want to ignore his complete lack of credentials.
I have no problem with what you want to believe but I do tale issue with your pretence of being neutral or of following scientific method.
And the evidence I've collected from your posting history shows you trying to prove that there is no warming which for some reason (maybe evidence) only a fraction of a percent of scientists support.
Call it naivete but since I don't have time to spend my days studying climate, I'm willing to accept the findings of the vast majority of people who do: the Earth is warming, human produced CO2 is playing a significant role, and if this continues human society will be negatively impacted.
eggauration?
WTF are you talking about, larue.
(and yes, I exaggerated, its 97% according to most polls though one study says 99.9%)
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax
Do you really need the 99.9% accuracy, or will you accept the approximation of 'every'?
You think scientists are that stupid?
The oil and gas industry has a $2 trillion annual revenue.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...economy-comprised-oil-gas-drilling-sector.asp
So if those scientists are supposed to be smart why would they risk their careers on fake reports if they could just go work for the $2 trillion industry directly?
And considering the US alone had $300 billion worth of extreme weather damage costs, they'd be way smarter to invest in either companies prepped to clean up those messes.
Where did you get that from?
And I found a site with 30,000 signatures claiming differently, so 30,000 = 3% so your 97% mus be a million scientists. Yeah I do not think so
Again your point is moot as science is not determined by a popularity contest
A little more than half is more likely
On the contrary, scientists are highly intelligent. If you want to see stupid look in the mirror
Somehow you equated $153 B with the scientist being stupid
Do you think all the revenue is available for bribes?
And if a scientist were to be funded by the oil industry the slander machine would kick into high gear
And if a scientist were to be funded by the oil industry the slander machine would kick into high gear
Ask willie soon, he can not finish a question and answer period without an eco warrior accusing him of being a crook
As explained before extreme weather events have been occurring for $4.5 B and are expected to continue. You live near the coast you takes some risks. Always have & always will
i told you construction inflation is twice that of normal inflation & population densities have been increasing in coastal regions, so yeah the costs are going to go up
But you want to blame higher costs exclusively on CO2
Your post.
Your 30,000 signatures includes the Spice Girls and actors from M.A.S.H.
Its as solid as Anthony Watts university degree.
As previously discussed and reported.
Exxon had their own scientists, of course, including climatologists.
40 years ago they looked at the risks of pumping their product into the atmosphere and do you know what they found?
Exactly the same results as government funded climatologists, that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would cause global warming.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
This totally destroys your claims that government funded scientists were biased.
There is zero chance that the 'UN' or anyone forced them to fake results if scientists hired by Exxon came up with the same results while funded by the oil industry.
Right?
How many times in the history of the planet has the CO2 level been increased as much and as rapidly as it has now?
What happened to the climate the last time CO2 was as high as it is now?
Can you answer those questions?
Funny your starting point is only 400,000.How many times in the history of the planet has the CO2 level been increased as much and as rapidly as it has now?
What happened to the climate the last time CO2 was as high as it is now?
Can you answer those questions?
Here a more accurate/ extremely precise chart is way better then your BULLSHIT cherry picking starting point.
This graph goes back miliions of year back before present time. Look at the CO2 and Temp fluctuations.
You missed the point of the chart, porny.
I asked two questions:
How many times in the history of the planet has the CO2 level been increased as much and as rapidly as it has now?
What happened to the climate the last time CO2 was as high as it is now?
I used that chart as it shows the incredibly fast and large increase in CO2, something that isn't as clear when you look into paleoclimatology charts.
If you use charts on paleoclimatology you should also note that ocean levels were 80 metres high, there was a different solar forcing on the planet and the accuracy of charts going that far back are not as good as the more recent periods.
The Scotese chart you include in your signature is 17 years old and based on old school concepts of climate history.
Here's a more current chart from the IPCC.
It is fact based. 4.5B years of Earth's history. Humans have only been changing CO2 significantly for about 70 years (since end of WWII). That's just over 2 climate data points out of 150M. And these folks want to dramatically change our use of fossil fuels and standard of living associated with them. No thank you.
Actually my observation has been that there were always periods of summer which were super hot. I remember summers of the 80's we would have weeks of 30°C plus days. I remember severe thunderstorms were a regular occurrence in late afternoons. Not so much anymore. I do find that September's on average today are warmer than in the 80's and 90's. At the same time I remember much more snowfall in winters than what we get now. I think winters have generally gotten warmer over the years (particularly around Christmas time). But they are also lasting longer well into spring. So yes there is some merit to the shorter spring and fall seasons that you mention.
I am in my mid 40's, I have lived in Toronto since I was 16. I can honestly tell you, as a whole, our winters and summer temperatures have not changed drastically at all over the last 30 years. The only difference is we have slightly less snow now, but that has more to do with humidity and not global warming
Except that you're wrong.
Toronto has warmed, whatever your personal feelings about the weather are.
Its pretty amazing how much CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere in the last 150 years, isn't it?
But it would be really stupid to dramatically change our planets climate based on maintaining your own personal standard standard of living, wouldn't it?
By the way, I know you think the UN is behind some kind of conspiracy, but how do you recon that the UN made Exxon's scientists come to the same conclusion as 97% of climatologists across the globe?
Does the UN control Exxon as well, in your theory?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Most of the change happened post WWII.
CO2 level 1880: 290 ppm.
CO2 level 1945: 310 ppm.
CO2 level 2010: 389 ppm
CO2 level today: 410 ppm.
Exactly.
Climatologists project about 2.3ºC warming for every doubling of atmospheric CO2.
And here's the chart that shows how that is happening, animated so you can follow the increases in CO2.
(by the way, I see you are afraid to answer the question about Exxon's scientists, tsk, tsk, tsk....)
Not true. Furthermore, CO2 and temperature relationship is logarithmic. For the first doubling of CO2 you get about 1C of warming. For the next doubling of C02 <1C of warming etc. Also there are not enough carbons to burn to take us even to 1,000 ppm. Too bad because I would say that 1,000 ppm would be an optimal level of atmospheric CO2. That's what they pump into greenhouses to help plants grow faster.Exactly.
Climatologists project about 2.3ºC warming for every doubling of atmospheric CO2.
And here's the chart that shows how that is happening, animated so you can follow the increases in CO2.
(by the way, I see you are afraid to answer the question about Exxon's scientists, tsk, tsk, tsk....)
Yes true, from the head of Berkely Earth Science.
And yes, the relationship is logarithmic, but what you describe is exponential.
So you think turning the planet into a giant greenhouse would be good?
That's pretty crazy.
You missed the point of the chart, porny.
I asked two questions:
How many times in the history of the planet has the CO2 level been increased as much and as rapidly as it has now?
What happened to the climate the last time CO2 was as high as it is now?
I used that chart as it shows the incredibly fast and large increase in CO2, something that isn't as clear when you look into paleoclimatology charts.
If you use charts on paleoclimatology you should also note that ocean levels were 80 metres high, there was a different solar forcing on the planet and the accuracy of charts going that far back are not as good as the more recent periods.
The Scotese chart you include in your signature is 17 years old and based on old school concepts of climate history.
Here's a more current chart from the IPCC.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728.abstract
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
Abstract
The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (∼240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
FYI: CO2 lags Temperature by 800 ± 200 years.
REPORT
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition
Bärbel Hönisch1, N. Gary Hemming1,2, David Archer3, Mark Siddall4, Jerry F. McManus1
See all authors and affiliations
Science 19 Jun 2009:
Vol. 324, Issue 5934, pp. 1551-1554
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171477
Article
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.abstract
Abstract
The dominant period of Pleistocene glacial cycles changed during the mid-Pleistocene from 40,000 years to 100,000 years, for as yet unknown reasons. Here we present a 2.1-million-year record of sea surface partial pressure of CO2 (PCO2), based on boron isotopes in planktic foraminifer shells, which suggests that the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) was relatively stable before the mid-Pleistocene climate transition. Glacial PCO2 was ~31 microatmospheres higher before the transition (more than 1 million years ago), but interglacial PCO2 was similar to that of late Pleistocene interglacial cycles (<450,000 years ago). These estimates are consistent with a close linkage between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global climate, but the lack of a gradual decrease in interglacial PCO2 does not support the suggestion that a long-term drawdown of atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of the climate transition.
PS. Checkmate you lose!!
