Can I get even one left winger to view the climate of the planet?

Okay what in particular would you like?

 

All of which by your own admission is not current

Do not confuse local with global or climate with weather

 

Your link only shows that gases surrounding a planet keep it warmer than a bare rock with no atmosphere, not that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Three of the links in the linked article purport to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but one of the links doesn't work and the other two are reviews of scientific papers and not scientific papers themselves. I read the last one listed, a very interesting review of the work of climatologists trying to figure out how the ice ages happened and coming to the conclusion that the "greenhouse effect" could be warming the planet through the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It also mentions the very damning bit of evidence that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are a lagging indicator, not a leading one, that natural temperature rises and falls have preceded the rises and falls in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. It then goes on to say how the scientists came up with a theory to explain away this phenomenon while still blaming carbon dioxide for the temperature changes. So color me curious but not convinced. What they have done is mistake correlation with causation. It would actually make sense that a freezing planet would have less CO2 in the atmosphere because the plants would be killed off, and a warming planet would have more CO2 in the atmosphere because the plants would be growing at a tremendous rate. But if CO2 is a lagging indicator, then we still don't know what causes ice ages, and we don't know what effect a man-made increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will actually have.

The alarmism in the article is palpable, too. By their calculations, we're all doomed even if we shut off all our cars and factories now because it takes a thousand years to absorb CO2 into the oceans and soil, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere already is going to keep temperatures rising for the next millennium. (Note that we'd have to shut off all our heat as well, because burning pretty much anything releases CO2 into the atmosphere.) I suppose if we went back to purely hydroelectric dams, we could keep some of the power on, but environmentalists absolutely oppose those. But we'd be unable to make anything without fire. And getting anywhere would become very difficult. Animals are no help because they release methane, and methane is more of a greenhouse gas problem than carbon dioxide, according to the studies.

I did provide evidence for it and you waved it away. Ad hominum means to attack the person and not the arguments, which is ****ing exactly what you did. You haven't refuted a ****ing thing I posted, only called me stupid. You're no longer worth responding to. Goodbye.

 

Can I get one of my left wingers to please stand up
And put one of these wings on each breast up
I'm a Liberal and I cluck
Jive like my name was Turkey 'cept you don't give a ****

 

I have yet to do that.

 

Gee lie about providing evidence and then run away. Or are you really so uninformed thst you think a 50% chance of a four degree warming equates to a 50% probablility that AGW exists.

And sorry you think my pointing out your lack of statistical knowledge is a personal attack. It is only pointing out a fact that your own post proved.

 

greenhouse gas

green·house gas
noun

1. a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation, e.g., carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons.

 

That is true. Considering the planet as a whole global warming is irrelevant and just another change. Where global warming does matter is to human life. Rising sea levels will be a major issue for a significant number of people. If correct stronger storms, changes in precipitation patterns will have significant impacts.

Now personally I think that the issue is fundamentally irrelevant as long as the human population of the planet continues to increase. I do personally think AGW is a reality but reducing emissions is never going to happen as long as population continues to increase. Current population growth is 1.12% so if one accepts AGW emissions have to be reduced worldwide by at least 1.12% per year just to break even.

 

My opinion on this is what little contribution man makes to climate change will be overwhelmed by naturally occurring events and earth will do as it pleases. Having said that, earth has been warming since the last ice age ended and will likely continue to do so until we start toward the next ice age. If the alarmist are right however I agree with you that not only our increasing population but our increasing amount of third world countries becoming industrialized will make any cuts in our C02 emissions like whistling into the wind. Either way we should probably accept the idea of a warmer climate on its way and the effects of that both positive and negative.

 

Well, what do you find when you tried to google for the answer?

 

That's fine. What naturally occurring events or processes can you point to that would explain a 20C per millennium temperature increase?

 

He probably found that greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation but do not reflect it.

 

As I stated it's been warming since the end of the last ice age. This didn't start with the beginning of industrializatin.

 

What did you locate on this topic?

 

https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
It even has animations

 

Change the climate. I double dare you. Can you change the climate?

 

Are you saying that we've been warming at a 20C per millennium rate since the last ice age?

 

There has been five mass extinctions in the history of life on Earth. The climate on Earth has had several major changes in just the last million years. The reason why Earth is in a constant state of change is because it is such a delicate balance. Sometimes, even a seemingly small events can have huge consequences.

 

But what if you are wrong? What if the effects are only negative and we cause the sixth great extinction event and human civilization is brought back to the stone age? Will an apology cut it? On the flip side, if we wean ourselves from big oil, and create a sustainable society and it turns out we were wrong, where's the harm except in you having to give up your 14 MPH Hummer H3 for a Tesla? As an added bonus, if we can convert from oil to sustainable energy, we could get out of the Middle East once and for all.

 

Sometimes faster sometimes slower and we even cooled for while during the little ice age period. The rebound from that was extremely fast.

 

A schizophrenic post. First you point out the dramatic changes in earths climate over time then you claim a delicate balance exist. Earths climate is more like a yo yo than a gyroscope.

 

Ahh yes, the "what if we are wrong" argument. I guess we should go through life like a pin ball machine bouncing off every new hypothesis to come down the pike because what if it's right? What if we are wrong? I prefer to live my life based on facts not on what ifs.

 

And be beholding to China and South America where nearly all the rare earth materials come from.

You could die leaving your house so better stay home.

 

Lanthanum and cerium are used in processing of crude oil so oil is no better, plus we are also beholden to the Middle East and Russia for their oil.

And your last line if a false equivalency.

 

I'm saying that small events can change the climate and has. There is no "normal" for climate, so if it changes, it stays that way until another force acts upon it to change it again.