New report on climate change released today

[Loren Pechtel]

You're missing the speed with which this is happening. Far beyond anything we can find a natural explanation for.



Repeating shit doesn't make it not shit. You've been shown what's wrong with this.

- - - Updated - - -

In about 800 million years when the sun's expansion and immense heat fries the planet to a crisp, it will still be blamed on CO2, should some climate activist homo sapien sapiens still be around.

The sun has been getting steadily hotter over an immense period of time with no let up. As the sun gets hotter, CO2 levels on Earth are bound to increase. It's the sun not CO2 that's responsible for the perhaps 0.03 C global rise in temperature over the last century or so.

Quit gluing yourself to Faux Noise.

1) Where does that .03C come from? Way too small.

2) Lets suppose that was the sun. Lets wind things back a couple million years and see where we are--about 600C lower than today. Oops, that's below absolute zero. The solar warming is due to helium building up in the core, it's not going to have sudden glitches.

Fuck me Loren. I really believed you to be a much more intelligent person than what you come across as in your post. Discarding the sun as irrelevant in Earth's global temperature is like believing in Adam & Eve as our first parents!

I was showing what was problem with ascribing the warming to the sun getting hotter. The effect is very slow!

According To NASA.................................According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that slow/fast enough for you!

.8/158 years = .005/year.
.03/100 years = .00003/year.

The .03 number I was questioning is off by more than a factor of a 100 by your own data.

And lets take your real number into the past and see what happens. Lets go back to the time of Jesus--.005 * 2000 years = 10 degrees cooler. Oops, that's 50% cooler than an ice age. The sun's warming occurs at a pretty consistent rate, I guess the sun wasn't responsible.

You're also ignoring that there's a considerable inertia effect to temperature--it takes a lot of energy to warm or cool the oceans. Thus even if we stop spewing CO2 tomorrow the temperature will continue to rise for a while before we reach a new equilibrium.

 

[angelo]

You're missing the speed with which this is happening. Far beyond anything we can find a natural explanation for.



Repeating shit doesn't make it not shit. You've been shown what's wrong with this.

- - - Updated - - -

In about 800 million years when the sun's expansion and immense heat fries the planet to a crisp, it will still be blamed on CO2, should some climate activist homo sapien sapiens still be around.

The sun has been getting steadily hotter over an immense period of time with no let up. As the sun gets hotter, CO2 levels on Earth are bound to increase. It's the sun not CO2 that's responsible for the perhaps 0.03 C global rise in temperature over the last century or so.

Quit gluing yourself to Faux Noise.

1) Where does that .03C come from? Way too small.

2) Lets suppose that was the sun. Lets wind things back a couple million years and see where we are--about 600C lower than today. Oops, that's below absolute zero. The solar warming is due to helium building up in the core, it's not going to have sudden glitches.

Fuck me Loren. I really believed you to be a much more intelligent person than what you come across as in your post. Discarding the sun as irrelevant in Earth's global temperature is like believing in Adam & Eve as our first parents!

I was showing what was problem with ascribing the warming to the sun getting hotter. The effect is very slow!

According To NASA.................................According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that slow/fast enough for you!

Also according to NASA, this is almost entirely due to human activity, and not to increasing solar heating of the Earth.

So are NASA only right when they agree with you?

Or are you just cherry picking, as usual?

Note the year, 1880, long before the "human induced" industrial revolution and the vast increase in burning of fossil fuels. Sometimes even the legitimate sources can't deny the facts!

 

[angelo]

You're missing the speed with which this is happening. Far beyond anything we can find a natural explanation for.



Repeating shit doesn't make it not shit. You've been shown what's wrong with this.

- - - Updated - - -

In about 800 million years when the sun's expansion and immense heat fries the planet to a crisp, it will still be blamed on CO2, should some climate activist homo sapien sapiens still be around.

The sun has been getting steadily hotter over an immense period of time with no let up. As the sun gets hotter, CO2 levels on Earth are bound to increase. It's the sun not CO2 that's responsible for the perhaps 0.03 C global rise in temperature over the last century or so.

Quit gluing yourself to Faux Noise.

1) Where does that .03C come from? Way too small.

2) Lets suppose that was the sun. Lets wind things back a couple million years and see where we are--about 600C lower than today. Oops, that's below absolute zero. The solar warming is due to helium building up in the core, it's not going to have sudden glitches.

Fuck me Loren. I really believed you to be a much more intelligent person than what you come across as in your post. Discarding the sun as irrelevant in Earth's global temperature is like believing in Adam & Eve as our first parents!

I was showing what was problem with ascribing the warming to the sun getting hotter. The effect is very slow!

According To NASA.................................According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that slow/fast enough for you!

.8/158 years = .005/year.
.03/100 years = .00003/year.

The .03 number I was questioning is off by more than a factor of a 100 by your own data.

And lets take your real number into the past and see what happens. Lets go back to the time of Jesus--.005 * 2000 years = 10 degrees cooler. Oops, that's 50% cooler than an ice age. The sun's warming occurs at a pretty consistent rate, I guess the sun wasn't responsible.

You're also ignoring that there's a considerable inertia effect to temperature--it takes a lot of energy to warm or cool the oceans. Thus even if we stop spewing CO2 tomorrow the temperature will continue to rise for a while before we reach a new equilibrium.

Then what the fuck was responsible for the Ice Ages? The belief in human induced GW/CC is exactly the same as belief in a cult. The brainwashing, the worship, and subduing of it's followers, but in this case on a massive scale never seen before.

And further, if we stop spewing CO2 into the atmosphere today, within less than half a century, we would be heading to a catastrophic shortage of vegetation and food in general that extinction would quickly follow. .

 

[Rhea]

You're also ignoring that there's a considerable inertia effect to temperature--it takes a lot of energy to warm or cool the oceans. Thus even if we stop spewing CO2 tomorrow the temperature will continue to rise for a while before we reach a new equilibrium.

Then what the fuck was responsible for the Ice Ages? The belief in human induced GW/CC is exactly the same as belief in a cult. The brainwashing, the worship, and subduing of it's followers, but in this case on a massive scale never seen before.

And further, if we stop spewing CO2 into the atmosphere today, within less than half a century, we would be heading to a catastrophic shortage of vegetation and food in general that extinction would quickly follow. .

*Citation needed

'cause, yah, BEFORE we started spewing CO2 at enormous rates, there was plenty of vegetation. You remember.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note the year, 1880, long before the "human induced" industrial revolution and the vast increase in burning of fossil fuels. Sometimes even the legitimate sources can't deny the facts!

Just because the data started at that point doesn't mean the increase has been linear over that time. It's just the oldest good data we have.

 

[bilby]

Note the year, 1880, long before the "human induced" industrial revolution and the vast increase in burning of fossil fuels. Sometimes even the legitimate sources can't deny the facts!

Just because the data started at that point doesn't mean the increase has been linear over that time. It's just the oldest good data we have.

That's probably because in 1880, long before the "human induced" industrial revolution and the vast increase in burning of fossil fuels, there were no plants, so everyone was too busy being extinct to make decent measurements.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then what the fuck was responsible for the Ice Ages? The belief in human induced GW/CC is exactly the same as belief in a cult. The brainwashing, the worship, and subduing of it's followers, but in this case on a massive scale never seen before.

And further, if we stop spewing CO2 into the atmosphere today, within less than half a century, we would be heading to a catastrophic shortage of vegetation and food in general that extinction would quickly follow. .

You seem to have a strange obsession with everything being due to a single cause. The reality is that there are many factors at work, both natural and man-made. On a human timescale it's the man-made ones that matter. On a sufficiently long timescale nature will dwarf the worst that we could do--there's no question we will eventually become a lava world. Whether we burn or simply melt isn't solidly settled yet.

 

[angelo]

Note the year, 1880, long before the "human induced" industrial revolution and the vast increase in burning of fossil fuels. Sometimes even the legitimate sources can't deny the facts!

Just because the data started at that point doesn't mean the increase has been linear over that time. It's just the oldest good data we have.

Wrong! There is data from millions of years ago in ice cores and rocks that show a far from linear climate. Perhaps that's the reason why many geologists don't buy the human caused GW/CC cult.

 

[angelo]

Note the year, 1880, long before the "human induced" industrial revolution and the vast increase in burning of fossil fuels. Sometimes even the legitimate sources can't deny the facts!

Just because the data started at that point doesn't mean the increase has been linear over that time. It's just the oldest good data we have.

That's probably because in 1880, long before the "human induced" industrial revolution and the vast increase in burning of fossil fuels, there were no plants, so everyone was too busy being extinct to make decent measurements.

This is one of the silliest posts you've ever made.

 

[TSwizzle]

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace Canada is calling out the AGW cultists;

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore had harsh words for the modern environmental movement, calling global warming “the greatest scam in history” and denouncing the use of “fear and guilt” to push the message. Democrats “might as well have signed a suicide pact,” Moore said. “Not just for their political future, but for the future of the economy of the US, for all these people to be piling on the Green New Deal, which is a complete and utter ridiculous document.”

News

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note the year, 1880, long before the "human induced" industrial revolution and the vast increase in burning of fossil fuels. Sometimes even the legitimate sources can't deny the facts!

Just because the data started at that point doesn't mean the increase has been linear over that time. It's just the oldest good data we have.

Wrong! There is data from millions of years ago in ice cores and rocks that show a far from linear climate. Perhaps that's the reason why many geologists don't buy the human caused GW/CC cult.

Congratulations, you just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace Canada is calling out the AGW cultists;

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore had harsh words for the modern environmental movement, calling global warming “the greatest scam in history” and denouncing the use of “fear and guilt” to push the message. Democrats “might as well have signed a suicide pact,” Moore said. “Not just for their political future, but for the future of the economy of the US, for all these people to be piling on the Green New Deal, which is a complete and utter ridiculous document.”

News

RT is a Russian propaganda outfit.

 

[angelo]

Nevertheless, no matter the source, the fact remains that Patrick Moore the founder of Greenpeace left the org he founded because of it's activism being no longer relevant to his ideals, peaceful and rational cause of conservation.

 

[angelo]

Wrong! There is data from millions of years ago in ice cores and rocks that show a far from linear climate. Perhaps that's the reason why many geologists don't buy the human caused GW/CC cult.

Congratulations, you just shot yourself in the foot.

Oh, and I have this gentleman on my side, surely a much more athouritive person than we'll ever be.
https://principia-scientific.org/physicist-richard-feynman-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/

 

[angelo]

The major problem with climate science is that the entirety of its argument about GW/CC is based entirely on computer models.

To this point in time they have proven to be spectacularly wrong. Science is based on scepticism. When a hypothesis is proposed, the true scientist constructs an experiment that will either validate the proposal, or reject it.

The problem with oxymoronic climate science is that all their hypotheses are aimed at some mythical point in the future, thereby making the construction of appropriate experiments impossible.

What ensues then is basically belief, which as Swizzle has already pointed out, which the alarmists/activists have taken up with religious fervour!

 

[TSwizzle]

The CAGW religious nutters go to court trying to stop the Heathrow airport expansion;

The decision to expand Heathrow airport with a third runway was unlawful because it failed to consider the full impacts of climate change and the need for more stringent targets to avoid catastrophic global warming, the high court has been told.

Teh Gruaniad

And Hammond declares that no new build houses can be heated by fossil fuel;

Climate activists have welcomed the government’s pledge to end fossil-fuel heating in new homes by 2025 - which might turn out to be one of the biggest measures today. Hammond told MPs that a new standard will be introduced by 2025 to future-proof new build homes with low carbon heating and energy efficiency measures. That appears to means the end of gas boilers being used to warm new-build houses.

The additional cost for a new home is calculated at £5,000, at the very least. The cost of running the alternative (with what?) has yet to be determined but it is unlikely to be cheaper than gas.


NONE of this will make one iota of difference to the climate.

AGW, a rapture like cult. Madness.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong! There is data from millions of years ago in ice cores and rocks that show a far from linear climate. Perhaps that's the reason why many geologists don't buy the human caused GW/CC cult.

Congratulations, you just shot yourself in the foot.

Oh, and I have this gentleman on my side, surely a much more athouritive person than we'll ever be.
https://principia-scientific.org/physicist-richard-feynman-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/

He's a physicist, not a climatologist.

 

[angelo]

Oh, and I have this gentleman on my side, surely a much more athouritive person than we'll ever be.
https://principia-scientific.org/physicist-richard-feynman-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/

He's a physicist, not a climatologist.

In other words, has no axe to grind and isn't funded by any government department trying to achieve a certain outcome.

 

[AirPoh]

Oh, and I have this gentleman on my side, surely a much more athouritive person than we'll ever be.
https://principia-scientific.org/physicist-richard-feynman-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/

He's a physicist, not a climatologist.

In other words, has no axe to grind and isn't funded by any government department trying to achieve a certain outcome.

No. In other words he does not have th e qualifications to speak to the subject with any authority other than his opinion just like any other layman.

 

[angelo]

In other words, has no axe to grind and isn't funded by any government department trying to achieve a certain outcome.

No. In other words he does not have th e qualifications to speak to the subject with any authority other than his opinion just like any other layman.

A very educated layman, in fact a scientist to boot.. What qualifications Al Gore, or even Michael Mann and the rest of the fruit loops who run the UN's IPCC have?