Last time Earth hit these CO2 levels there were trees at the South Pole

LV426 said:
Personally, I think it's too late.

I think the damage has already been done and it's irreversible.

I think we're headed for mass starvation and migration, water wars, and conflict over dwindling supplies and resources.

If you were foolish enough to have kids, you totally set them up to have hard, difficult lives.
Click to expand...

My kids will be just fine. We own acres of land in the mountains with the freshest possible water you can imagine and we have mineral rights.

We have hydroelectricity. Abundance of wood to burn in the winter. Ample fishing and hunting. 100% of our needs are taken care of. I have taught my offspring to be self sufficient.

Now you poor slobs who live in the cities will be like Lord of the Flies and I will laugh at you.
 
Teflon Don said:
Blah blah blah

It isn’t me saying we have passed the point of no return. It is Warmists
Click to expand...

There are a whole series of "points of no return". The scientists are right that we've passed some. To go back to the analogy to obesity, there's a point at which you've gotten fat enough you're going to have stretch marks. You've passed the point of no return for that. But that doesn't mean you've passed the point of no return for, say, diabetes. Or heart failure. Etc. Similarly, we've passed the point of no return where we're not going to be able to prevent another 1 degree Celsius of global warming over the next century. That's locked in. But how about two? Three? Four? We've passed the point of no return where some glaciers are definitely going to have vanished in the next couple decades. But, we haven't passed the point of no return for others. The same is true for various species' extinction. The dumbest people want to treat this as a binary system, where there's a single point of no return and we either passed it or we didn't. But that's simply not a correct analysis of the situation.

Personally I don’t care if the world gets warmer or colder. We will adapt.
Click to expand...

Assuming you're very old and don't have any young people you care about, and you have an evil attitude about the rest of the human species, then that's a position you can take. You'll be dead before long and the rest of us can suffer for all you care. But the degree to which we need to suffer to adapt to the new reality will matter a great deal to a great many people, and, as a moral person, I do care about that.

It is the height of arrogance to think one can do anything to impact the weather.
Click to expand...

No. We know as a scientific fact that people can do things that impact the weather. The height of arrogance is denying that simply because your politics can't accommodate any policies that would address global warming.

I have found throughout my life that those who profess to be smart usually aren’t. Just sayin.
Click to expand...

No. You only THINK you've found that, because you're not very bright, and those who are smart are speaking so far above your level that you don't get what they're saying.
 
LV426 said:
How many millions of years ago?

Because one theory is that the asteroid hit that wiped out the dinosaurs created a nuclear winter that trapped in greenhouse gasses, and rendered the planet uninhabitable for our species until only about 30,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

I propose we fly a space shuttle to the asteroid. Land on it. Drill a 150 foot hole and drop a nuke down in the hole. Take off and then detonate the nuke
 
Oneuli said:
We've never been through a period of global warming anywhere near this fast. There are two issues the low-IQ set has, which cause them to cite graphs like the one you did:

(1) They can't tell the difference between local warming and global warming, so they'll point to a single site to try to make a point about the globe as a whole.

(2) They have no grasp of timescale, so they'll point to a graph that's so compressed that it's impossible to gauge the speed of warming on a scale relevant to the current period of anthropogenic warming.

As to that latter point, take a look at the graph. In pixel terms, it's about 676 pixels wide, and covers a period of about 425,000 years. So, every single horizontal pixel marks about 629 years. Thus, the entire period of the current instrument record (1880-2019) would take up about 1/5 of one pixel. The industrial era would not even show up on that graph -- disappearing between pixels.

So, take a look at one of those temperature spikes.... say, the most recent one. It runs from abut -8 degrees Celsius to about 2 degrees Celsius over the course of about 13 horizontal pixels. That's about 8,180 years.... a period longer than the whole history of human civilization. So, even in that very rapid period of local warming, we're talking about a warming rate of about 818 years per degree of warming. By comparison, since 1975, warming has been happening at a rate of about 1.5-2 degrees C per century. We're talking about warming currently happening at a pace over a thousand times what you see in the steep parts of your graph.

Of course, that's all obvious at a moment's glance to anyone with a science background, or at least a decent IQ. But it never even occurs to the dummies on the right, who will post graphs like that, imagining foolishly that they support their case. How can one even discuss such matters with people that thick?
Click to expand...

:lolup:Doesn't think he is a gullible, brain dead moron. :laugh:
 
Oneuli said:
There are a whole series of "points of no return". The scientists are right that we've passed some. To go back to the analogy to obesity, there's a point at which you've gotten fat enough you're going to have stretch marks. You've passed the point of no return for that. But that doesn't mean you've passed the point of no return for, say, diabetes. Or heart failure. Etc. Similarly, we've passed the point of no return where we're not going to be able to prevent another 1 degree Celsius of global warming over the next century. That's locked in. But how about two? Three? Four? We've passed the point of no return where some glaciers are definitely going to have vanished in the next couple decades. But, we haven't passed the point of no return for others. The same is true for various species' extinction. The dumbest people want to treat this as a binary system, where there's a single point of no return and we either passed it or we didn't. But that's simply not a correct analysis of the situation.



Assuming you're very old and don't have any young people you care about, and you have an evil attitude about the rest of the human species, then that's a position you can take. You'll be dead before long and the rest of us can suffer for all you care. But the degree to which we need to suffer to adapt to the new reality will matter a great deal to a great many people, and, as a moral person, I do care about that.



No. We know as a scientific fact that people can do things that impact the weather. The height of arrogance is denying that simply because your politics can't accommodate any policies that would address global warming.



No. You only THINK you've found that, because you're not very bright, and those who are smart are speaking so far above your level that you don't get what they're saying.
Click to expand...

Considering that in many places the temperature rapidly changes from 20 degrees in the winter to 100 degrees in the summer without catastrophic sequelae I am thinking we are good.

I don’t care about global warming but that has nothing to do with my desire to see all leftists suffer. That is just a hobby
 
LV426 said:
Conservatives know all this; they just act in bad faith because of their egos.
Of course they accept man is responsible...they just don't want to admit it because admitting that would be a tacit admission their judgement isn't as good as they want people to believe.
The con they've been pushing is embedded in their DNA now...so if the con is proven invalid, so are they.
Click to expand...

Of course you know that you are a low IQ, lying dumb fuck on steroids that just won't admit it because that would be a tacit admission to your ignorance. ;)
 
Oneuli said:
There are a whole series of "points of no return". The scientists are right that we've passed some. To go back to the analogy to obesity, there's a point at which you've gotten fat enough you're going to have stretch marks. You've passed the point of no return for that. But that doesn't mean you've passed the point of no return for, say, diabetes. Or heart failure. Etc. Similarly, we've passed the point of no return where we're not going to be able to prevent another 1 degree Celsius of global warming over the next century. That's locked in. But how about two? Three? Four? We've passed the point of no return where some glaciers are definitely going to have vanished in the next couple decades. But, we haven't passed the point of no return for others. The same is true for various species' extinction. The dumbest people want to treat this as a binary system, where there's a single point of no return and we either passed it or we didn't. But that's simply not a correct analysis of the situation.



Assuming you're very old and don't have any young people you care about, and you have an evil attitude about the rest of the human species, then that's a position you can take. You'll be dead before long and the rest of us can suffer for all you care. But the degree to which we need to suffer to adapt to the new reality will matter a great deal to a great many people, and, as a moral person, I do care about that.



No. We know as a scientific fact that people can do things that impact the weather. The height of arrogance is denying that simply because your politics can't accommodate any policies that would address global warming.



No. You only THINK you've found that, because you're not very bright, and those who are smart are speaking so far above your level that you don't get what they're saying.
Click to expand...

If you can impact the weather then make it snow in Phoenix AZ tomorrow.
 
Oneuli said:
Judith Curry is one of the few genuine scientists embraced by the denialist set, since she's one of the only one who says denialist-friendly stuff. But, if you read what she's actually written, even she's not disputing the basics of the climate change consensus position. She just quibbles about the models and expresses greater uncertainty about the magnitude of the problem.
Click to expand...

STRAWMAN; which is all the loony left has these days. There are no "denialists". That is a brain dead meme used by dishonest leftist hacks to suppress any real debate. The issue is not denying the planet has warmed, but rather, the lunatic claim that MAN IS the cause of it.

STFU, seriously.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
science says "go fish".....
Ice_Age_Temperature.png
Click to expand...

450,000 years ago.

What about models of 450,000,000 years? Where's that model?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top