Global Climate Changes

[LOL_Man]

@LOL_Man I have a bunch of recyclables that need to be taken out to the curb.

How would I separate them from the rest of the trash?

Seriously, you politards need to get out of here and leave this thread for intelligent climate change discussion instead of your spectacular displays of moroninity. If I had pulled your thread hijacking stunt back in the day when I wasn't completely unfairly banned from posting in the political thread then you folks would have been begging the moderator to ban me for "spam" or whatever convenient lie you could come up with to silence the only liberal here that can slap you unconscious in that thread. You're all cowards, I get that. Go be cowards doing cowardly things somewhere else.

 

[LOL_Man]

A duo of Earth-observing missions has enabled researchers to detect and track carbon dioxide (CO2) emission changes from a single facility, using the world’s fifth-largest coal-fired power plant as a test case.

In the recent study, researchers used space-based measurements from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) 2 and 3 missions to quantify the carbon dioxide discharged hundreds of miles below at Bełchatów Power Station in Poland, the largest single emitter in Europe. Analyzing the plant’s emission plumes from several satellite overpasses between 2017 and 2022, they detected changes in carbon dioxide levels that were consistent with hourly fluctuations in electricity generation. Temporary and permanent unit shutdowns (for maintenance or decommissioning) reduced the plant’s overall emissions, which the team was able to detect as well.

The findings demonstrate that space-based observations can be used to track carbon dioxide emission changes at a local scale, the scientists said.

NASA Space Missions Pinpoint Sources of CO2 Emissions on Earth

 

[LineSkiCat14]

How would I separate them from the rest of the trash?

Seriously, you politards need to get out of here and leave this thread for intelligent climate change discussion instead of your spectacular displays of moroninity. If I had pulled your thread hijacking stunt back in the day when I wasn't completely unfairly banned from posting in the political thread then you folks would have been begging the moderator to ban me for "spam" or whatever convenient lie you could come up with to silence the only liberal here that can slap you unconscious in that thread. You're all cowards, I get that. Go be cowards doing cowardly things somewhere else.

Sooooo.. you're not coming to grab my recyclables then?

 

[LOL_Man]

Sooooo.. you're not coming to grab my recyclables then?

No, I might grab a couple of your relatives by mistake.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

No, I might grab a couple of your relatives by mistake.

 

[Kingseve1]

I see where Lexington is gonna touch 60 degrees on 2 different days by next Thursday.

That shit didn’t happen in January when I was growing up

 

[Caveman Catfan]

In 1986, in Lexington, it reached 61 on 1/16 and 62 on 1/18 and 63 on 1/21. A lot of golf was enjoyed that week.

 

[cole854]

I see where Lexington is gonna touch 60 degrees on 2 different days by next Thursday.

That shit didn’t happen in January when I was growing up

January 17th, 1980.....high was 59.

Thanks for playing.

 

[cole854]

I got $20 that says LOL_Man has a picture of Bill Nye on his nightstand.

 

[wkycatfan]

I see where Lexington is gonna touch 60 degrees on 2 different days by next Thursday.

That shit didn’t happen in January when I was growing up

Even if true, the climate change movement is not about changing the climate. It's about money and bigger government. Never let a good crisis go to waste, as they say. See covid.

 

[hmt5000]

Agreed! God made the world, but he also allows us to destroy things as we choose, including ourselves and the planet.

The graph is clear. The planet is warming. If youve played golf a long time it’s obvious. I know you’re a golfer.

I used to geek out if the winter temp broke 45 in Lexington in the 80s/90s. Today, that’s no big deal

Co2 isn't destroying "ourselves". The green movement is. You are literally reducing food availability and increasing cost of living. Poor people are going to die off in great numbers if the greenies keep getting their way. We have a carbon based economy. You can say it's destroying the Earth but you also have to admit that going away from it will lead to an extreme die off of humans.

 

[hmt5000]

Vaccines are a joke and maybe even a crime against humanity , but they don’t have anything to do with the planet warming.

People lying about the science for control an money? You don't see the correlation?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Still waiting for the explanation of how cavemen ended the ice age with their reckless carbon output

 

[PhDcat2018]

Agreed! God made the world, but he also allows us to destroy things as we choose, including ourselves and the planet.

The graph is clear. The planet is warming. If youve played golf a long time it’s obvious. I know you’re a golfer.

I used to geek out if the winter temp broke 45 in Lexington in the 80s/90s. Today, that’s no big deal

This post just makes you look like a dummy. You being able to golf in winter doesn't prove climate change is a man made issue. Of course that's about as much facts as the climate change alarmists have...

 

[Mdnerd]

This post just makes you look like a dummy. You being able to golf in winter doesn't prove climate change is a man made issue. Of course that's about as much facts as the climate change alarmists have...

Honestly if the result of climate change is being able to golf in winter, that sounds like a pretty good deal. This guy is so over the top concerned, he isn’t ditching his car or eating cold food, he’s hitting the links. First world problems…

An old friend of mine is a MASSIVE climate change whack job. We get along fine as long as he doesn’t start in on his crazy rants. The funny part is he’s an airline pilot and somehow justifies his behavior of using massive amounts of dirty jet fuel while telling everyone else they need to drive an EV. It’s funny and really sad at the same time.

 

[roguemocha]

And the fact that golf courses have one of the biggest environmental impacts of any sport.

“The worst sports for the environment include skydiving (massive relative carbon footprint), golf (water consumption and chemicals needed), auto-racing and other motor-vehicle sports (absolute carbon emissions), and motorized water-sports (fuel consumption and biosphere interruption).”

“In California, an average 18-hole golf course sprawls over 110 to 115 acres and conservatively uses almost 90 million gallons of water per year, enough to fill 136 Olympic-size swimming pools, said Mike Huck, a water management consultant who works with golf courses statewide.”

 

[LOL_Man]

People lying about the science for control an money? You don't see the correlation?

Do you ever stop and analyze what it is you believe? Engage in introspection as well as a little self-reflection to see how the way you've decided to intellectually go about your life is the best way forward for you or if you need a course correction?

By what twisted self-delusion do you believe there is more money on the side of climate change than there is in big energy? Global oil and gas exploration and production alone were worth 2.7 trillion in 2021. Globally coal is somewhere around 500-600 billion a year.

So for your theory to work, the energy sector would not be able to pick-off one legitimate scientific institution anywhere in any country on earth, were this simply a question of money. Well why can't they do that? You don't think it would help the cause of debunking all these greedy climate change scams to have a powerful well respected scientific institution in say Russia or Finland or somewhere that you could flip to your side?

What can't they do that? I will answer that for you. Because it is a scientifically unsupportable position. No legitimate scientific institution on earth is going to ruin their good name backing what is a completely unsupportable position. Were the science there, they'd be jumping. But you can't get just one. Anywhere.

 

[LOL_Man]

I got $20 that says LOL_Man has a picture of Bill Nye on his nightstand.

I am not particularly a Bill Nye fan and I don't obsess on any one issue. I have a range of opinions on a variety of topics that interest me and that I make an effort to understand, particularly when they are an existential threat to my family.

Just a general perusal of the board finds I am interested in sport, movies, crime, and of course politics, but I am limited in my ability to participate in the political discussions as somehow that topic has been rigged to favor one particular point of view that decided I'm too good at beating them to a pulp to be allowed to continue to contribute in the political thread.

 

[cole854]

particularly when they are an existential threat to my family.

I do the same for my family, however, nothing discussed on this thread is a threat to any of us.

 

[MatteoV25]

I do the same for my family, however, nothing discussed on this thread is a threat to any of us.

Yikes, can't wait to see what @LOL_Man says about this one...

 

[Kingseve1]

People lying about the science for control a money? You don't see the correlation?

I think People lie about everything. No group is immune to lying. The COVID response was a mass hysteria implosion and pharma may have taken advantage. I’m not gonna blame that on the science community.

While COVID happened almost overnight and we had to try everything at once, it doesn’t compare to climate change. Climate change has been taking place for a long time and graphs show the planet is warming.

 

[Catemus]

Well, I'm not sure that is true.

Man, and everything man does/builds is so miniscule conpared to the vastness of this planet that we're pretty much tiny dust particles on a grapefruit, that, if moved together, in one massive pile, would barely be visible with the naked eye

When darkness falls upon the earth, the extent of humanity’s effects are well lit.

 

[LOL_Man]

I do the same for my family, however, nothing discussed on this thread is a threat to any of us.

cole854 to his worried family when the jet stream shuts down and Thermohaline circulation of the oceans stops completely:

 

[Kaizer Sosay]

I think People lie about everything. No group is immune to lying. The COVID response was a mass hysteria implosion and pharma may have taken advantage. I’m not gonna blame that on the science community.

While COVID happened almost overnight and we had to try everything at once, it doesn’t compare to climate change. Climate change has been taking place for a long time and graphs show the planet is warming.

Wow. You think “big pharma” is the only group that took advantage of the Covid crisis/debacle? Wake up, man.

 

[Kingseve1]

Wow. You think “big pharma” is the only group that took advantage of the Covid crisis/debacle? Wake up, man.

Never said that. Not sure how this pertains to the planet warming or the weather becoming more extreme

 

[VaxxedObamaCat]

Something has to be done to get gay Ukrainians vaccinated to fix climate change and racism.

 

[LOL_Man]

As you read these questions keep in mind that if earth were say an apple then the atmosphere would be about the same proportion as the skin of the apple to the apple itself:

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

Is CO2 increasing dramatically since human industrialization began in our razor thin atmosphere beyond anything we've seen in the last 800,000 years?

What happens when you change the chemical makeup of our razor thin atmosphere and exponentially increase known greenhouse gasses?

How would you expect to significantly increase GHG in the atmosphere without impacting climate?

Understanding basic thermodynamics, what will happen in the arctic when it goes ice free and you have the sun beating down 24/7 on dark blue open ocean water?

What will be the impact of monsoon rains on arctic tundra?

What drives the global Thermohaline circulation current and what will be the impact of fresh water melting off Greenland be to the driving force of that circulation?

What drives the jet stream and how is the temperatures rising in the artic weakening it?

What happens when soil temperature reaches 104 degrees?

What causes crop failure?

What happens when the rate of change in climate exceeds a living organisms ability to adapt?

What happens when the rate of change in climate causes loss of habitat for what a species depends upon in order to survive?

With no ice in the Northern Hemisphere, no jet stream, no Thermohaline circulation, no grain crops, nothing we understand that drives our climate, what will the world look like?

Finally, once warm water flowing into the arctic sufficiently destabilizes methane clathrates in the Eastern Siberian Arctic Ice Shelf and they rapidly begin pumping say 50 gigatons (out of 700gt available) of CH4 (methane) directly into the atmosphere, what happens?

The below quotes are from

"Professor Peter Wadhams is the world’s most renowned polar ice scientist with 46 years of research on sea ice and ocean processes in the Arctic and the Antarctic. Since 2015, he serves as Professor Emeritus of Ocean Physics, Cambridge University. He was Director of the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge from 1987 to 1992 and Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge from 1992 to 2015. He has made more than 50 expeditions to both polar regions, working from ice camps, icebreakers, aircraft, and, uniquely, Royal Navy submarines (making six submerged voyages to the North Pole). His research group in Cambridge has been the only UK group with the capacity to carry out field work on sea ice. He has also held visiting professorships at the National Institute of Polar Research, Tokyo, the US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, the University of Washington, Seattle and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla. Peter Wadhams has been awarded the W.S. Bruce Prize of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1977), the UK Polar Medal (1987) and the Italgas Prize for Environmental Sciences (1990). He is an Associate Professor at the Laboratoire d'Océanographie de Villefranche, and a Professor at the Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and a Member of the Finnish Academy."

The quotes and corresponding page numbers are taken from A Farewell to Ice:

“We must remember— many scientists, alas, forget—that it is only since 2005 that substantial summer open water has existed on Arctic shelves, so we are in an entirely new situation with a new melt phenomenon taking place.” (Wadhams, pg. 123)

“First, the probability of this pulse happening is high, at least 50 per cent according to the analysis of sediment composition by those best placed to know what is going on, Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov. Moreover, if it happens, the detrimental effects are gigantic… the risk of an Arctic seabed methane pulse is one of the greatest immediate risks facing the human race… Why then are we doing nothing about it? Why is this risks ignored by climate scientists, and scarcely mentioned in the latest IPCC assessment? It seems to be not just climate change deniers who wish to conceal the Arctic methane threat, but also many Arctic scientists, including so-called ‘methane experts.” (Wadhams, pg. 127-28)

 

[LOL_Man]

As it happens, only recently, inordinately high levels of methane emissions have been reported, to wit:

(1) Methane Observation – October 2019 -“This is the most powerful seep I have ever been able to observe… No one has ever recorded anything similar.” (Source: Research Vessel Encounters Giant Methane Seep in Arctic Waters, The Maritime Executive, Oct. 10, 2019) The quote is from Igor Semiletov, professor Tomsk Polytechnic University on the research vessel Academic M.A. Lavrentyev on a 40-day Arctic mission.

(2) Methane Observation – December 2019 – Three months later at COP25 in Madrid, Dr. Peter Carter, an IPCC expert reviewer, in an interview d/d December 10th, 2019, referenced an ongoing eruption of methane above Barrow, Alaska, saying: “We’ve never seen anything like it. And, it has stayed at elevated levels to the present week. Looking at the 2.2 million year ice core, the maximum methane concentration ever was 800 ppb. In Barrow, Alaska it is 2,050 ppb and staying there. It’s been up there for 4 months.”

A note about the Barrow observation -Dr. Peter Carter believes the origin may be permafrost decay from land. However, according to Dr. Wadhams, he’s not so sure of Carter’s explanation and even though the waters offshore Barrow are not known to contain subsea methane, it is theorized the 4-month extremely high CH4 reading may have originated at ESAS and drifted, a theory with forceful negative ramifications.

The Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory was established in 1973 by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Earth System Research Laboratory to track hourly methane readings.

According to initial reports by NOAA re the sharp uptick in CH4 readings to 2050 ppb: “To spot methane levels breaking the 2000ppb mark so sharply in this fragile region is unprecedented.” (Source: Arctic Methane Levels Reach New Heights, The Institution of Engineering and Technology, September 16, 2019)

(3) Methane Observation – Dahr Jamail’s book The End of Ice (The New Press, 2019)relates an ominous story of methane bubbling at Barents Sea.In Barrow, Alaska, he met Ira Leifer, a scientist who studies the shallow seas of the Arctic and works with NASA on methane data. Leifer discovered wicked SOS signals coming from a 620 square mile area of the Barents Sea jam-packed with methane bubbles at the rate of 60 million plumes, which is almost impossible to fathom as the normal background rate should be thousands, not 60 million.

The question arises: Are the three aforementioned sightings related, and if so, what are the consequences for the climate system and impact on society at large?

First and foremost, did NOAA/Barrow send notifications of the excessively high readings to the White House and members of Congress? After all, the danger of a major burst of methane out of the shallow-waters (40m-100m) within Russia’s continental shelves exceeds the risks of a North Korean missile attack.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) alone is the size of Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan combined and jammed full of methane trapped beneath underwater permafrost that is rapidly thinning. (N. Shakhova)

“Pre-formed gas preserved in the ESAS suggests a potential for possible massive/abrupt release of CH4, whether from destabilizing hydrates or from free gas accumulations beneath permafrost; such a release requires only a trigger.” (Source: Natalia Shakhova, et al, Understanding the Permafrost-Hydrate System and Associated Methane Releases in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, Geosciences, June 5, 2019)

For additional perspective, according to Dr. Semiletov: “Emissions of methane from the East Siberian Shelf – which is the widest and most shallow shelf of the World Ocean – exceed the average estimate emissions of all the world’s oceans… We have reason to believe that such emissions may change the climate. This is due to the fact that the reserves of methane under the submarine permafrost exceed the methane content in the atmosphere is many thousands of times.” (Source: Arctic Methane Gas Emissions ‘Significantly Increased Since 2014’ – Major New Research, The Siberian Times, October 4, 2016)

The Rumbling ESAS Methane Enigma

 

[hmt5000]

Do you ever stop and analyze what it is you believe? Engage in introspection as well as a little self-reflection to see how the way you've decided to intellectually go about your life is the best way forward for you or if you need a course correction?

By what twisted self-delusion do you believe there is more money on the side of climate change than there is in big energy? Global oil and gas exploration and production alone were worth 2.7 trillion in 2021. Globally coal is somewhere around 500-600 billion a year.

So for your theory to work, the energy sector would not be able to pick-off one legitimate scientific institution anywhere in any country on earth, were this simply a question of money. Well why can't they do that? You don't think it would help the cause of debunking all these greedy climate change scams to have a powerful well respected scientific institution in say Russia or Finland or somewhere that you could flip to your side?

What can't they do that? I will answer that for you. Because it is a scientifically unsupportable position. No legitimate scientific institution on earth is going to ruin their good name backing what is a completely unsupportable position. Were the science there, they'd be jumping. But you can't get just one. Anywhere.

Wow. So you aren't aware of esg scores and global governance? For instance.... Exxon mobile has a higher esg score than Tesla. I don't know how anyone that is a greenie could think that Exxon is better for the environment than Tesla. But for Exxon to continue to function and not be sued into oblivion they have to pay what amounts to bribes and allow activist on their board. Most of the board doesn't look at profits first anymore. They are partisan political hacks that want to use Exxon's money to do their wish list stuff.

I appreciate that you think I'm crazy because I think different than you. You need to appreciate that I think you are very ignorant of the intentions of a lot of these global entities.... like look at Black Rock. One of the largest hedgefunds in the world. They sit on tons of boards in the US. They forced US co's to not work on an oil field in China because of worries of the environment and workers safety... the problem is that Black Rock also owns a ton of stock in the Chinese co that is now exploiting the new oil field in China. It wasn't about not developing the oil field... it was about not letting US co's get in on it.

 

[hmt5000]

I think People lie about everything. No group is immune to lying. The COVID response was a mass hysteria implosion and pharma may have taken advantage. I’m not gonna blame that on the science community.

While COVID happened almost overnight and we had to try everything at once, it doesn’t compare to climate change. Climate change has been taking place for a long time and graphs show the planet is warming.

Climate hasn't just been changing for a long time... It has always changed since we formed an atmosphere. You are ignoring the point of the graphs I posted. Yes the planet is warming. You think that humans putting Co2 into the air is causing it. Why were temps both lower and higher when Co2 levels were wayyyy higher? How did we have ice ages when co2 levels were 4X higher than now?

 

[LOL_Man]

Climate hasn't just been changing for a long time... It has always changed since we formed an atmosphere. You are ignoring the point of the graphs I posted. Yes the planet is warming. You think that humans putting Co2 into the air is causing it. Why were temps both lower and higher when Co2 levels were wayyyy higher? How did we have ice ages when co2 levels were 4X higher than now?

Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph).

NASA directly contradicting hmt5000's lies to his family

 

[hmt5000]

Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph).

NASA directly contradicting hmt5000's lies to his family

I get you keep wanting to limit the timeline on everything. Why not look at the entire timeline that we have data for? What is it about the data from 400 million years ago to now that you don't want to admit?

 

[LOL_Man]

Wow. So you aren't aware of esg scores and global governance? For instance.... Exxon mobile has a higher esg score than Tesla. I don't know how anyone that is a greenie could think that Exxon is better for the environment than Tesla. But for Exxon to continue to function and not be sued into oblivion they have to pay what amounts to bribes and allow activist on their board. Most of the board doesn't look at profits first anymore. They are partisan political hacks that want to use Exxon's money to do their wish list stuff.

I appreciate that you think I'm crazy because I think different than you. You need to appreciate that I think you are very ignorant of the intentions of a lot of these global entities.... like look at Black Rock. One of the largest hedgefunds in the world. They sit on tons of boards in the US. They forced US co's to not work on an oil field in China because of worries of the environment and workers safety... the problem is that Black Rock also owns a ton of stock in the Chinese co that is now exploiting the new oil field in China. It wasn't about not developing the oil field... it was about not letting US co's get in on it.

OK, let's entertain for a moment that money instead of science was driving global scientific consensus. Then how would they get them all? You mean there is so much money involved for climate change hoaxers that Big Energy can't just scrape a couple nickels together just to pick off one in say Africa or South America? You can't buy just one off? If they're for sale then isn't it for the highest bidder? Hard to believe all you folks on the Hoax side can't muster collectively enough money to get one hook to hang your hat on?

What does that say about your theory? What does it say about mine?

Do you know what rationalizing is? As a man, do you feel obligated to rationally understand what presents a clear and present danger to your family or do you feel best served by looking the other way? By finding sweet lies to convince yourself that as the water boils around you it is fine to stay in the pot?

You're a weak man with a weak mind, hmt5000. Please apologize to your family for your failure and beg their forgiveness.

 

[hmt5000]

OK, let's entertain for a moment that money instead of science was driving global scientific consensus. Then how would they get them all? You mean there is so much money involved for climate change hoaxers that Big Energy can't just scrape a couple nickels together just to pick off one in say Africa or South America? You can't buy just one off? If they're for sale then isn't it for the highest bidder? Hard to believe all you folks on the Hoax side can't muster collectively enough money to get one hook to hang your hat on?

What does that say about your theory? What does it say about mine?

Do you know what rationalizing is? As a man, do you feel obligated to rationally understand what presents a clear and present danger to your family or do you feel best served by looking the other way? By finding sweet lies to convince yourself that as the water boils around you it is fine to stay in the pot?

You're a weak man with a weak mind, hmt5000. Please apologize to your family for your failure and beg their forgiveness.

You are misstating the "consensus" in human caused climate change. While most all signed onto the IPCC work, there were differing opinions of how much humans contributed. I would hope you'd agree that if we are responsible for 5% of climate change then we aren't solely responsible. Also showing that you now understanding of how global climate movement is controlling international orgs that in turn control loans and grants. Good to see you going to personal attacks. Must be more of that finely honed intellect that people in the political thread fear. I guess I know why they call you LOL man. LOL.

 

[LOL_Man]

I get you keep wanting to limit the timeline on everything. Why not look at the entire timeline that we have data for? What is it about the data from 400 million years ago to now that you don't want to admit?

Link and source your arguments like I do. I need context to support your claims. You often use NOAA graphs to try and support your claims which are utterly hilarious seeing clearly what NOAA (and NASA and every other legitimate scientific institution on earth) believes since I linked their official position on Climate Change. Just randomly posting some chart out of context does not support your case even if your poor family believes there is no way you would be so derelict as to lie to them about all their futures. You wouldn't want to die a traitor and a coward to your whole family, would you?

 

[hmt5000]

Link and source your arguments like I do. I need context to support your claims. You often use NOAA graphs to try and support your claims which are utterly hilarious seeing clearly what NOAA (and NASA and every other legitimate scientific institution on earth) believes since I linked their official position on Climate Change. Just randomly posting some chart out of context does not support your case even if your poor family believes there is no way you would be so derelict as to lie to them about all their futures. You wouldn't want to die a traitor and a coward to your whole family, would you?

LOL. Typical unhinged greenie.... who can't read a chart. How is it out of context when it has co2 levels going back 400 million years? Do you really not know that we went through several ice ages in that time? Do I need to show you a graph for that too because your knowledge of the subject is pedestrian?

 

[LOL_Man]

LOL. Typical unhinged greenie.... who can't read a chart. How is it out of context when it has co2 levels going back 400 million years? Do you really not know that we went through several ice ages in that time? Do I need to show you a graph for that too because your knowledge of the subject is pedestrian?

Shouldn't be a problem for you, then. Link your source that interprets your chart the way you do? Why are you refusing? You want us to accept your interpretation of several million years of scientific data? Hmm... tough call. You and your unsourced chart out of context or the world's greatest scientific institutions with clear peer reviewed data? If I were going to look out for my family, which one should I choose?

 

[LOL_Man]

You are misstating the "consensus" in human caused climate change. While most all signed onto the IPCC work, there were differing opinions of how much humans contributed. I would hope you'd agree that if we are responsible for 5% of climate change then we aren't solely responsible. Also showing that you now understanding of how global climate movement is controlling international orgs that in turn control loans and grants. Good to see you going to personal attacks. Must be more of that finely honed intellect that people in the political thread fear. I guess I know why they call you LOL man. LOL.

Goalpost moving I see. So now it is we are not "solely" responsible for climate change. You want a number on it. Below 5%? LOL.

Look, cut to the chase. You want to fight back with ignorance, confusion, and misstatement. You are completely unconvincing in any argument you've made. You move from lie to lie without ever addressing the point at hand. Your only defense is circular ever changing arguments to avoid being pinned down.

Answer four questions directly:

What do greenhouse gasses (GHG) do and why are they called that?

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

Has global CO2 risen sharply during human industrialization over the last 150 years?

How would you expect to dramatically increase GHG in the atmosphere without impacting climate?

Answer a couple more:

Since the jet stream is a result of the temperature differentials between the poles and the equator, what happens when you raise the temperature in the arctic?

What happens to water in a glass once all the ice cubes are melted and all the heat energy then turns directly to warming the contents of the glass instead of melting ice cubes?

 

[hmt5000]

I guess humans were driving lots of cars in the past. Maybe even cooking with gas stoves. LOL. I don't know why you are so mad though. You guys are getting your way. Europe is cutting their agriculture production by 30% to save the planet. The US has tons of farmers getting out due to economics and rules. You are going to get to blame the climate for the coming food shortage that you guys are causing. Just because I'm aware it's your alls fault shouldn't be affecting you this bad. Most of the world will double down and produce even less food to solve the food crisis.

What population of humans would you be OK with. Do you plan on staying alive or will you off yourself to save the planet?

 

[LOL_Man]

I guess humans were driving lots of cars in the past. Maybe even cooking with gas stoves. LOL. I don't know why you are so mad though. You guys are getting your way. Europe is cutting their agriculture production by 30% to save the planet. The US has tons of farmers getting out due to economics and rules. You are going to get to blame the climate for the coming food shortage that you guys are causing. Just because I'm aware it's your alls fault shouldn't be affecting you this bad. Most of the world will double down and produce even less food to solve the food crisis.

What population of humans would you be OK with. Do you plan on staying alive or will you off yourself to save the planet?

That is a rich post that illustrates perfectly why you have no idea what you are talking about. You posted first a graph that falls within the 800,000 year chart that I already posted which shows global CO2 levels rising and falling during glaciation but never rising above 300ppm. You essentially back up my position with your first graph but blissfully are unaware you did so. Instead you post temperature levels during glaciation. LOL. Were you surprised to find out they went down in ice ages and rose afterwards? Was that your big revelation?

You then go on to talk about previous million year old climate changes by suggesting that since cars were not there then it proves it's all a hoax? Who, ever, has suggested humans are the sole source of global CO2 or even the predominant one? You have no point. At all.

The focus is on how has global climate been impacted by the last 150 years of human industrialization beyond what would normally have occurred. You think just because the planet warmed naturally a million years ago that it disproves human contribution to raising GHG in the atmosphere currently?

Again, you have no leg to stand on. At all. You're wasting everyone's time with your ignorance. I have wasted way too much time with you. I took pity on you because I imagined you sitting there lying to your family and I was momentarily sorry for you as a human being. My mistake.