Question about climate change

Sorry you do not accept NASA reports.

 

Ah, no, sorry. The fact that the poles are not at absolute zero does not in any way argue that solar heating is not proportional to the cosine of latitude.

No, it does not. Only the falsified, manipulated, cherry-picked data does.

Nope. See above.

The "data" maybe. Not the facts. It is becoming more and more obvious that the emperor of anti-CO2 hysteria has no clothes. Arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012 at a level similar to the cyclical low of the 1930s, and has increased over the subsequent seven years. Older people all over the world can see for themselves that their local climate is no warmer than it was in the 1930s.

Ah, no. In the case of the temperature record, we have seen exactly how it is being faked: increased use of infill data rather than actual thermometer readings, tendentious adjustments for land use changes, retroactive alteration of decades-old data, etc., etc.

 

No, son. Institutional science has often been wrong. Only the facts are valid. That principle is what institutional science -- real, empirical institutional science, not politically manipulated hysterics -- is built on.

 

I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Institutional science to me is just a general idea that separates the consensus science from charlatans.
I’m not your son....

 

I don't understand why you would choose to believe this. There is no science behind it, it's completely made up, and it contrasts with every other actual scientific study.

 

Are you that poorly informed ?? The chart is from Berner 2001 NOAA/NGDC.

 

It’s a rediculous chart for these purposes. Whether the chart is real or not, it’s totally immaterial. Look at the scale. The last period covers 75 million years. A sudden uptick of co2 in the last 150 years would be completely obscured and not even registered. It shows a complete lack of any statistical math background. It’s a charlatan diversion. You really don’t think that others would fall for this and be as uninformed as using this chart would indicate do you ?

 

If you’re going to use NASA as a reference, let NASA do the interpretation of their chants. Deniers are totally bias and unqualified. Here is an interpretive chart and reference.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

But, keep using NASA as a reference, just don’t use the Faux version.

 

That's ^^^ hilarious.

 

Where is the temperature data ?? Where is the temperature correlation of atmospheric CO2 with global temperature (hint - there is none) ?? Why did CO2 go up and down in a repeatable pattern ?? If the alarmist CO2 control knob hypothesis is correct why did temperature not go up and down driven by CO2 ???

 

I guess your inability or refusal to read the reference is getting in your way. Do you believe NASA if you’re going to , yes or no ? If you don’t, we have nothing to talk about.

 

I don’t find it funny that you’re this uninformed. But I do pity deniers.

 

Again no answers. Just a faith based belief in a hypothesis that is not supported by the natural historical record. Funny stuff.

 

Yes, a non serious, uninformed denier would come to your conclusion.

 

And again no answers. Only a faith based statement that anyone who points out the fallacies in the global warming - CO2 dependence is a denier of science. That's hilarious.

 

Your answers are with NASA, not me. It’s comical that you would follow an illerterate, self proclaimed denier in Trump and not every university and major organization in the world. That’s not hilarious. It’s pitiful.

 

You seem to present a common misconception of so called climate skeptics

Is it a fact that scientists claim “co2 dependence”? No, that is incorrect. Scientists do not make the claim which you attribute to them.

The claim that IS MADE is that co2 among many other factors INFLUENCES climate. Do you claim that is a “fallacy of global warming”.... and if so, on what basis

 

The uptick in carbon dioxide is almost non existent. Parts per million pal. Not parts per 100.

 

Well pal, you don’t know the horizontal scale of the graph in question is in 100s of millions of years. Any discussion of what happens the last 200 years in any quantity of co2 is asinine.....pal.

Why don’t you address your questions to the search engine on the NASA web site ? Do you need directions ?

 

Now that is hilarious.

 

So what percentage of the current global warming rate of temperature rise do “scientists” claim is attributable to CO2 increase ??? 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% ???

Current global warming is real. It started at the end of the little ice age. The rate of warming is in the range of the 9 previous warming and cooling periods in our present interglacial period known as the Holocene which is ~ 10,000 years old. The last two warming periods had a rate of temperature rise greater than the current rate. These are the Medieval and Roman warm period. Each of these warm periods were followed by cooling periods. And in each of these warm periods human civilization flourished. And all of this happened with no change in CO2 concentration.

 

We are in a carbon drought.

[/QUOTE]

 

Exactly. We came very close (~180 ppm) to dipping under the minimum atmospheric concentration of CO2 to sustain plant life (~150 ppm) at the end of the last Ice Age. The average for the last 600 million years is ~ 2500 ppm.

 

Try telling that to the global warming conspiracy theorists and they'll look at you like you were crazy.

If were in an interglacial warm period, then why was carbon so low (280ppm)? Isn't it supposed to be higher? It should be low during glacial periods according to them. We came incredibly close to total extinction if the carbon got so low as to not support plant life.

 

I do not need snark. Why not stop delivering snark?

From the early claims by Democrats, and I do not mean scientists. I carefully called out Democrats as to the fear when it was several parts per million? They were bug eyed with fear. I am not easy to scare. See I studied this for the FAA exam in 1980. Funny it never mentioned blaming humans for climate. I understood clouds more than the layman does.

Even today, Democrats have not managed to scare me over climate.