Gulf Stream

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

9 hours ago, Leftfield said:

*sigh*

TIME. SCALE.

Once again, those changes were over, at a minimum, thousands and thousands of years. The climate is heating up too quickly for us to adapt to it. 

Why can't you figure this out? Would you please figure this out? My God I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over again.

 

Nice meme.  You do realize that bully was manhandled by the truth because he was a d!ck. It will probably end up the same.

 

[johnnyAU 3,644]

9 hours ago, Leftfield said:

The climate is heating up too quickly for us to adapt to it. 

No, it isn't

[Leftfield 2,651]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, I’m not saying that.  Your premise is CO2 is killing us and I am working on that premise.  I believe you have been taken by *the science* and can’t get you head out of your a$$.

You can’t see beyond *the science* because you believe it so fervently that nothing else enters you thought.  You are amoung the minority of the population of the world that believe *the science*.

I put up exactly what *the science* states will happen and you argue that.  If you look at it as the earth will save itself, this is what might happen as *the science* states.  It is the fear mongering you consider the truth.  Ugly, isn’t it?

If what you and *the science* says is true (and I don’t agree with *the science*) conditions are not drastic enough for people to acquiesce.

Sorry you don’t like the answer.

Most of this in unintelligible gibberish, but I do find it laughable you claim I'm taken by *the science*, when you have posted absolutely no proof that your position has any merit. All you have is "corrupt scientists" and hope and faith in nature to take care of itself. 

"Thoughts and prayers" for the environment, eh?

Will also point out you never explained what we were non-believers of.

Edited March 19 by Leftfield

[Leftfield 2,651]

5 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, it isn't

Great post. Full of information. 

Please show data proving me wrong. Considering you've posted none every time I've asked, I won't hold my breath.

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Most of this in unintelligible gibberish

Let me break it down for you.  I think your opinion is wrong about the climate and you’re being a d!ck about it.

[Leftfield 2,651]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Let me break it down for you.  I think your opinion is wrong about the climate and you’re being a d!ck about it.

Well, gee, sorry I hurt your feelings. I think I was quite cordial for the vast majority of the conversation - certainly more than you - but when you completely ignore the points I'm making so that I have to repeat them, and refuse to post any proof of the arguments you're making, it gets pretty frustrating. You literally have nothing backing your opinion other than what I pointed out in my last post. All you say is I'm wrong, without providing any reasons for it other than you think it. 

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

"Fossil fuels" is a myth, hydrocarbons are renewable energy created by high temperature chemical reactions between the Earth's core and mantle. The idea that CO2 causes climate change is another laughable myth. The Sun is not static, the real reason of changing temperature is that the Sun-Earth distance varies due to what is known as solar-inertial motion, which is the movement of the Sun following the barycentre of the solar system, NOT the geometric centre.

Water vapour is the only real greenhouse gas with any effect on warming. CO2 should increase not decrease to green the planet further. Global warming saves lives while cooling ends many more. It is all a historical con by the oligarchic class which funds all "scientific" establishments in order to defraud the naïve & gullible through further taxation and hand out public money to private energy companies in the form of faux-"green" subsidies.

 

 

[johnnyAU 3,644]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Great post. Full of information. 

Please show data proving me wrong. Considering you've posted none every time I've asked, I won't hold my breath.

Show me proof the Earth is warming up too fast to adapt. Show me the proof that CO2 is the main cause. You can't do either. We are not in any sort of climate "catastrophe". In fact, what little warming we have undergone has been beneficial for growing crops. Of course, since cold kills many more living things than heat, a little less extreme cold might be welcomed by the ones that have been living in it. 

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

 

 

[Leftfield 2,651]

5 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Show me proof the Earth is warming up too fast to adapt. Show me the proof that CO2 is the main cause. You can't do either. We are not in any sort of climate "catastrophe". In fact, what little warming we have undergone has been beneficial for growing crops. Of course, since cold kills many more living things than heat, a little less extreme cold might be welcomed by the ones that have been living in it. 

Are you really serious here?

I and others have already posted links to websites, graphs, and charts showing the increases in temperature and CO2 levels. The site homer posted has just about everything you could want in terms of access to scientific research on the subject. That site was literally put together as a resource for those who refute the climate is heating up. The very fact you're asking me to post proof again just shows you've ignored all of it. Even if we hadn't posted anything, you can find a ton of corroborating information from a simple internet search.

You also don't seem to understand that just because crops may start to grow better in some areas, they'll die in others. You're thinking in local terms, not global. Heat helps in some ways, but hurts in others. Diseases also tend to thrive in warmer climates, so the pandemic I_M seems to be counting on becomes more likely.

[Leftfield 2,651]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

Common sense such as the Greenhouse effect...has no effect?

Lunacy. You've gone off the rails.

 

[johnnyAU 3,644]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Are you really serious here?

I and others have already posted links to websites, graphs, and charts showing the increases in temperature and CO2 levels. The site homer posted has just about everything you could want in terms of access to scientific research on the subject. That site was literally put together as a resource for those who refute the climate is heating up. The very fact you're asking me to post proof again just shows you've ignored all of it. Even if we hadn't posted anything, you can find a ton of corroborating information from a simple internet search.

You also don't seem to understand that just because crops may start to grow better in some areas, they'll die in others. You're thinking in local terms, not global. Heat helps in some ways, but hurts in others. Diseases also tend to thrive in warmer climates, so the pandemic I_M seems to be counting on becomes more likely.

I've read everything you could post on the subject.  There isn't proof CO2 is the driver. BTW, crops have increased globally, not just locally. You and Homer are the ones who need to step outside of your echo chambers. 

[I_M4_AU 7,961]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Common sense such as the Greenhouse effect...has no effect?

Lunacy. You've gone off the rails.

 

As stated above:

Water vapour is the only real greenhouse gas with any effect on warming. 

[Leftfield 2,651]

13 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

BTW, crops have increased globally, not just locally. 

And temperature increases are the only reason for that? No other factors?

[Leftfield 2,651]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

As stated above:

Water vapour is the only real greenhouse gas with any effect on warming. 

As auburnatl1 pointed out, I'm sure Venus disagrees.

Edited March 19 by Leftfield

[johnnyAU 3,644]

Just now, Leftfield said:

As auburn11 pointed out, I'm sure Venus disagrees.

Venus agrees that atmospheric thickness, density and pressure have more to do with it

[homersapien 11,431]

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

The Effects of Climate Change

The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

 

(See Article for specifics)

 

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad

Are the Effects of Global Warming Really that Bad?

Short answer: Yes. Even a seemingly slight average temperature rise is enough to cause a dramatic transformation of our planet.

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/global-warming-effects

 

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/impacts-climate-change

Impacts of Climate Change

 

https://www.livescience.com/37057-global-warming-effects.html

What are the effects of global warming?

 

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts

Climate change impacts

 

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-are-effects-climate-change

What Are the Effects of Climate Change?

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-will-global-warming-harm-human-health-and-well-being

Climate Impacts

The consequences of climate change are already here.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14828-5

A real-time Global Warming Index

 

I could go on and on.......  There is no excuse for exhibiting such ignorance on the subject this thread reveals.  It's not like the information isn't available.

What we have here is deliberate and willful ignorance driven by conspiratorial delusions.

 

[johnnyAU 3,644]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I could go on and on.......  There is no excuse for exhibiting such ignorance on the subject this thread reveals.  It's not like the information isn't available.

What we have here is deliberate and willful ignorance driven by conspiratorial delusions.

This isn't science, it's a collection of unfounded claims. What we have here is willful ignorance and driven by blind ideology and virtue signaling. You START off with references to the UNIPCC? The intergovernmental (it's in the name) panel on climate change is nothing more than a UN strong arm formed to influence and force policy. It's early stages were due to Margaret Thatcher's desire to kill the NUM and the coal industry to replace it with nuclear. The climate change myth (or GW at the time) was the perfect scapegoat to be used as a weapon. The money hasn't stopped flowing since, and neither has the propaganda. 

[Leftfield 2,651]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Venus agrees that atmospheric thickness, density and pressure have more to do with it

Here's the key word. It implies, correctly, that CO2 has some effect. You and I_M are arguing it has no effect.

Water vapor traps more heat on Earth, but CO2 does trap some. And that energy has to go somewhere. Even small amounts of excess build over time. As they do, and temperatures rise, more water vapor is produced, trapping more heat. Would you be convinced that the globe is warming if water vapor in the atmosphere was increasing? Because it is.

[johnnyAU 3,644]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

You and I_M are arguing it has no effect.

No. It has an insignificant effect. Water vapor is increasing, but not due to CO2. 

[Leftfield 2,651]

3 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No. It has an insignificant effect. Water vapor is increasing, but not due to CO2. 

Why is it increasing?

If water vapor has a much greater greenhouse effect, and you admit it's increasing, why do you believe the climate isn't getting warmer? What mechanism is dissipating the extra heat?

[johnnyAU 3,644]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

why do you believe the climate isn't getting warmer?

I didn't say it wasn't getting warmer. I said it isn't increasing too fast for humans to adapt. I also don't think it will continue to warm for the foreseeable future. We will hit another cooling cycle regardless if CO2 remains near 420 ppm or hits 500 or more. 

[Leftfield 2,651]

11 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I also don't think it will continue to warm for the foreseeable future. We will hit another cooling cycle regardless if CO2 remains near 420 ppm or hits 500 or more. 

Source?

[homersapien 11,431]

9 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

This isn't science, it's a collection of unfounded claims. What we have here is willful ignorance and driven by blind ideology and virtue signaling. You START off with references to the UNIPCC? The intergovernmental (it's in the name) panel on climate change is nothing more than a UN strong arm formed to influence and force policy. It's early stages were due to Margaret Thatcher's desire to kill the NUM and the coal industry to replace it with nuclear. The climate change myth (or GW at the time) was the perfect scapegoat to be used as a weapon. The money hasn't stopped flowing since, and neither has the propaganda. 

Like I said....."conspiratorial delusions." 

Tell us how it is the preponderance of scientists (virtually all of them) in the field as well as related fields - not to mention all of their professional organizations - continue to publish findings that support the "propaganda"?

Are all of these scientists - operating in various different fields of study, as well as all the entire scientific infrastructure in on the "propaganda"?

Edited March 20 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,431]

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Here's the key word. It implies, correctly, that CO2 has some effect. You and I_M are arguing it has no effect.

Water vapor traps more heat on Earth, but CO2 does trap some. And that energy has to go somewhere. Even small amounts of excess build over time. As they do, and temperatures rise, more water vapor is produced, trapping more heat. Would you be convinced that the globe is warming if water vapor in the atmosphere was increasing? Because it is.

 "Feedback" mechanisms that could possibly generate accelerated warming are scary to contemplate.

For example, I read where Siberia's permafrost sequesters enormous quantities of methane, which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2