Global Warming

lotr10

Well-known member
For those of you who believe human beings are causing dangerous global warming - I don't - there's not a damn thing the USA or Europeans can do about it. So you either better study the science and realize there's little proof we're causing significant climate change or go all in on adaptation. Because those are your only choices:


1620400311754.png

The USA + EU + Japan account for less then 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions. So even if we were eliminated from the Earth CO2 emissions would be large and continue to rise.
 

Yorktown

Well-known member
For those of you who believe human beings are causing dangerous global warming - I don't - there's not a damn thing the USA or Europeans can do about it. So you either better study the science and realize there's little proof we're causing significant climate change or go all in on adaptation. Because those are your only choices:


View attachment 17098

The USA + EU + Japan account for less then 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions. So even if we were eliminated from the Earth CO2 emissions would be large and continue to rise.

Yep but we still need to provide for child care in the name of global warming...
It’s all a joke.. I dont take anyone serious who thinks climate change is catastrophic. It’s not even close.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
Yep but we still need to provide for child care in the name of global warming...
It’s all a joke.. I dont take anyone serious who thinks climate change is catastrophic. It’s not even close.
Climate Change is also now an excuse to seek asylum here in the U S of A
 

lotr10

Well-known member
I know it's only weather but keep this in mind when the Climate Change alarmists start telling people the sky is falling if it gets hot this July!


The other thing this data shows us is that what we're seeing with climate fits comfortably within historical norms.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
The key to understanding why human caused Climate Change is not a threat is to understand prior climate conditions:


So I thought I’d see how far we are from the 2°C or the 1.5°C cliff that we’re supposedly going to go over with disastrous results. Let me start with a long-term look …

1621600138842.png

Now, this shows the Roman Warm Period that ended in about 150AD. Temperatures dropped and bottomed out during the Dark Ages, in about 500AD. They then warmed until the Medieval Warm Period peak in about 1000AD, cooled to the bottom of the Little Ice Age around 1700, and have been warming in fits and starts ever since.

Questions:

  • Why did the Roman Warm Period end?
  • Why did it end in 150 AD and not in say 400 AD?
  • Why did the subsequent cooling stop around 500AD, and not say 350 or 650 AD?
  • Why didn’t the warming up to the peak of the Medieval Warm Period just continue?
  • Why did the MWP end in 1000 AD and not say 1200 or 800 AD?
  • Why did the subsequent cooling stop in 1700 AD, instead of continuing to a new glaciation as the Milankovich cycles would suggest?
  • Why has the earth warmed for 300 years since then?
  • Why did the recent warming start 100 years or so before the recent rise in CO2 levels?
Protip—the answer to any and all of those questions is obviously not “CO2”.

The bad news is, I don’t know the answer to those questions. But the worse news is, not one climate scientist on the planet knows the answers to those questions.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
More whatsupwiththat BS.
Yep and I notice you have no comment on the significant temperature changes we've experienced just over the last 2000 years. Seems like we're seeing a similar rise in temperatures as the ones that led to the Roman & Medieval Warm periods.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
Yep and I notice you have no comment on the significant temperature changes we've experienced just over the last 2000 years. Seems like we're seeing a similar rise in temperatures as the ones that led to the Roman & Medieval Warm periods.
Remember when you would talk about the inaccuracy of going back 2000 years and beyond? If it fits your narrative it must be ok.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Remember when you would talk about the inaccuracy of going back 2000 years and beyond? If it fits your narrative it must be ok.
To be clear going back 2,000 years forces us to use surrogates to make estimates of climate conditions. These are not as accurate as direct measurements. But because you had advanced civilizations in Europe & Northern Asia both in 100 AD and 1200 AD we can recreate a pretty accurate estimate of climate conditions.

What I was referring to was the inability of calculating RATES OF CLIMATE CHANGE more then 200 years ago as accurately as we can today. Again we can estimate the change but it is a bit like comparing apples & oranges when looking at 1000 years ago versus today. My point was that alarmist claims that temperatures are currently warming faster then they did leading up to the Roman & Medieval warm periods could not be proven.

Of course one of the worst things the climate change alarmists do is to use their models to adjust measured temperature readings from the early 20th century. Unless you have absolute proof that a mistake was made in those measurements, and they've NEVER produced such proof, it's against good scientific practice to adjust the measured readings.

You seem to struggle with the simple truth that the science underlining the alarmist climate change theory is weak and of poor quality.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
This has been posted here a couple of times before. I'm not sure exactly what it is but it definitely is not science. It's aimed at a junior high level audience and conclusions are made that are not supported by the data - assuming any data even exists for some of these conclusions!
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
This has been posted here a couple of times before. I'm not sure exactly what it is but it definitely is not science. It's aimed at a junior high level audience and conclusions are made that are not supported by the data - assuming any data even exists for some of these conclusions!
Just keep getting your "science" from places like whatsupwiththat.com and other sources PAID by big oil to tell you global warming is not real.
 

Hammerdrill

Well-known member
Spot on. Lol.

The science you follow is equivalent to having a scientist on the dole of big tobacco from the 60's tell you smoking is not harmful to your health.
It isn't, and it amazing that you think so. While at the same time seemingly blind to the fact that scientists are paid to only find man made climate change.
 

Caleb

Well-known member
Gen 8:22
“While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.”

It's pretty simple people. Nobody ever has a problem with the seedtime and harvest, winter and summer, day and night but it's that cold and heat people can't figure out. There will be cold and heat people so stop making things so complicated.
 

19AL63

Well-known member
The fact that we had a very cool (below average temps) spring no one warned me we could be going into a ice age but now that it has finally getting warm here comes danger and the see I told you.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Just keep getting your "science" from places like whatsupwiththat.com and other sources PAID by big oil to tell you global warming is not real.
All WUWT does is act as a distribution center for skeptic science reports. Because this information is suppressed by the MSM it can only get out at sites like this. The way it works is you read the studies and decide for yourself their merit. Much of what is linked to at WUWT are from peer reviewed scientific articles & journals.

Another decent site is this one:


BTW Judith Curry has forgotten more about climate science then the folks you quote know about it.

I get disagreeing with me over the science. That comes with the territory. But you guys spend almost all your time attacking the sources of the information. And in doing so display complete ignorance over how the sources are developed and supported.

I mean between calling these scientists & engineers "deniers" (as in holocaust) and being in the pay of Big Oil and acting like the scientists in the pay of Big Tobacco isn't an argument - it's character assassination.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
It isn't, and it amazing that you think so. While at the same time seemingly blind to the fact that scientists are paid to only find man made climate change.
It's where all the NGO and Government money is. Try getting a grant if your work casts doubt on human caused climate change.

Years ago a paper was published showing that increasing CO2 atmospheric levels would increase the robustness of plant growth on earth. Pretty much a no brainer but the researchers did something very clever. They focused on the problem of increasing POISON IVY! Of course another disaster to lay at the feet of burning fossil fuels. And with Poison Ivy it gets personal for a lot of people. Funny how they didn't talk about more productive grape vines or apple orchards.
 

irish_buffalo

Well-known member
It's where all the NGO and Government money is. Try getting a grant if your work casts doubt on human caused climate change.

Years ago a paper was published showing that increasing CO2 atmospheric levels would increase the robustness of plant growth on earth. Pretty much a no brainer but the researchers did something very clever. They focused on the problem of increasing POISON IVY! Of course another disaster to lay at the feet of burning fossil fuels. And with Poison Ivy it gets personal for a lot of people. Funny how they didn't talk about more productive grape vines or apple orchards.
Back to the money grubbing scientists is why Global Warming is a hoax. :ROFLMAO:
 
.
Top