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

Teflon Don said:
So they will adapt or die. No big deal

It’s all good
Click to expand...

Part of the way we adapt, you unspeakable pile of shit, is to limit our greenhouse gas emissions. If you think it's "no big deal" if we fail to do so, then that says a lot about you as a person..... and I use "person" loosely.
 
Teflon Don said:
How long will it take? How much coal dust will it take? What is the temperature?
Click to expand...

Those variables all interact, obviously, dummy. But you didn't answer the question. Care to guess why the one with the dust will melt faster? I'll give you a hint: it's related to the reason that the climate has been warming thanks to more CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
Oneuli said:
No. I'm recounting the science. No point blubbering just because you were ignorant of it. Just thank me for relieving your of your ignorance and do better in the future.



We are at a much quicker pace than that, now. But even if it were just 1 degree over 138 years, when, exactly, do you think was the last time we had warming of a degree every 138 years. Be specific, please.



We didn't, actually. We just had a period of somewhat slower warming. And then we went back to faster warming. As sunspots have ebbed and flowed, we've gone from abnormally quick warming to insanely quick warming and back again. That can't be explained by the ups and downs of sunspots. Obviously.



My knowledge of civilization is so far beyond yours that I just have to chuckle. As I said, it depends on your definition of the word, but if you're going with that Websters definition, civilization has been around much less than 10,000 years. If you're going with some other definition based around, say, the emergence of cities, you might push back closer to 10,000, but you'd need to go back to pre-civil cultures if you went before the ice age. Nothing resembling writing or cities existed at the time.



Obviously, if you were trying to exaggerate the extent of the warming, you wouldn't start your measurement ten years after the ice age ended. You'd start it in the depths of the ice age, when temperatures were at their coolest, a century or two earlier. How can you possibly not realize that?
Click to expand...

The Arctic was 6C warmer 9000 years ago!!

Shallow marine molluscs that are today extinct close to Svalbard, because of the cold climate, are found in deposits there dating to the early Holocene. The most warmth-demanding species found, Zirfaea crispata, currently has a northern limit 1000 km farther south, indicating that August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10.2–9.2 cal. ka BP, when this species lived there. The blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, returned to Svalbard in 2004 following recent warming, and after almost 4000 years of absence, excluding a short re-appearance during the Medieval Warm Period 900 years ago. Mytilus first arrived in Svalbard at 11 cal. ka BP, indicating that the climate was then as least as warm as present. This first warm period lasted from 11 to 9 cal. ka BP and was followed by a period of lower temperatures 9–8.2 cal. ka BP. After 8.2 cal. ka, the climate around Svalbard warmed again, and although it did not reach the same peak in temperatures as prior to 9 ka, it was nevertheless some 4°C warmer than present between 8.2 and 6 cal. ka BP. Thereafter, a gradual cooling brought temperatures to the present level at about 4.5 cal. ka BP. The warm early-Holocene climate around Svalbard was driven primarily by higher insolation and greater influx of warm Atlantic Water, but feedback processes further influenced the regional climate.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ic_molluscs_show_early_and_exceptional_warmth
 
Havana Moon said:
The Arctic was 6C warmer 9000 years ago!!

Shallow marine molluscs that are today extinct close to Svalbard, because of the cold climate, are found in deposits there dating to the early Holocene. The most warmth-demanding species found, Zirfaea crispata, currently has a northern limit 1000 km farther south, indicating that August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10.2–9.2 cal. ka BP, when this species lived there. The blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, returned to Svalbard in 2004 following recent warming, and after almost 4000 years of absence, excluding a short re-appearance during the Medieval Warm Period 900 years ago. Mytilus first arrived in Svalbard at 11 cal. ka BP, indicating that the climate was then as least as warm as present. This first warm period lasted from 11 to 9 cal. ka BP and was followed by a period of lower temperatures 9–8.2 cal. ka BP. After 8.2 cal. ka, the climate around Svalbard warmed again, and although it did not reach the same peak in temperatures as prior to 9 ka, it was nevertheless some 4°C warmer than present between 8.2 and 6 cal. ka BP. Thereafter, a gradual cooling brought temperatures to the present level at about 4.5 cal. ka BP. The warm early-Holocene climate around Svalbard was driven primarily by higher insolation and greater influx of warm Atlantic Water, but feedback processes further influenced the regional climate.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ic_molluscs_show_early_and_exceptional_warmth
Click to expand...

You dodged the question, pipsqueak. When was the last time in history you think the globe was warming as the current pace? Be specific, please.
 
Cypress said:
If you have uncovered a vast conspiracy, a climate hoax that has somehow duped the governments of the world, and all of the world's leading prestigious science organizations with expertise in climate, I suggest you report your findings to EPA, IPCC, White House, National Academy of Sciences, et al. Poste haste.

Your findings are truly remarkable, and if true, you need to present your research to science organizations and policy makers before this hoax gets out of hand.
Click to expand...

The only hoax here are Anonymoose's self-professed, unverified, and unsolicited credentials.
 
Teflon Don said:
So rapid changes in temperature and ZERO calamity.
Click to expand...

Zero calamity?

The entire city was shut down when we got the snow.

Businesses lost money.

Workers lost hours.

Kids lost schooltime, and parents had to leave work to take care of them (or even worse, bring their spawn to their jobs).

Commerce took a hit.
 
countryboy said:
You're literally too stupid to realize, you just destroyed your own argument. Was man responsible for those CO2 levels, when there were trees at the South Pole? Was it due to "runaway emissions"?

Tell me something, nutsack, is the stupid painful? I mean, does it physically hurt? Just curious.
Click to expand...

What's painfully stupid is your sophistry.

When the South Pole wasn't frozen, humans didn't exist and wouldn't for millions of years.

Stop. You're the embarrassment here.
 
anonymoose said:
The only thing I found was the truly poor criteria required for publication in earth sciences journals
Click to expand...

What "poor criteria"? Elaborate, Mr. Faker.

Notice how Conservatives always lean on ambiguity when offering their "expertise".

Anonymoose is playing a character on these boards.
 
LV426 said:
What "poor criteria"? Elaborate, Mr. Faker.

Notice how Conservatives always lean on ambiguity when offering their "expertise".

Anonymoose is playing a character on these boards.
Click to expand...

Shut the fuck you obnoxious cunt, he is one of the straightest people on here.
 
anonymoose said:
Where'd the 'excess' come from? Venusians driving SUV's?
Click to expand...

From the planet being formed, you fucking fraud.

Now I have to explain how planets are formed to you?

Shouldn't you already know this as a self-described and professed instructor, or teacher, or professor, or whatever bullshit credential you're trying to fake today?

Wow.

You're not a teacher and you never were, huh?

You've been faking those credentials on this board this whole time to try and trick people into thinking there's some factual basis for the stupid shit you say here.
 
anonymoose said:
Where'd the 'excess' come from? Venusians driving SUV's?
Click to expand...

So there's no way you're any kind of educated person, and there sure as shit is no way you've ever taught anyone anything.

You're faking it all on these boards, aren't you? You're faking it because you know there's no way anyone can expose you since this is an anonymous forum.

Why does Venus have Carbon in its atmosphere, this supposed instructor asks, unable to do a simple Google search?

Venus' Atmosphere: Composition, Climate and Weather
https://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html
 
anonymoose said:
It's unbelievable to LV that anyone is capable of owning property.
Click to expand...

It's unbelievable to me that people who come on anonymous message boards and make unverifiable claims about themselves anonymously would have the gumption, determination, savvy, and insight into owning property.
 
Oneuli said:
Those variables all interact, obviously, dummy. But you didn't answer the question. Care to guess why the one with the dust will melt faster? I'll give you a hint: it's related to the reason that the climate has been warming thanks to more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

How long can I expect it to take? A day? A week? A month? A year?

What modern conveniences have you eliminated from your life to save the planet from this supposed scourge that is man made global warming. Surely you live a complete 100% carbon neutral or carbon negative lifestyle
 
LV426 said:
Zero calamity?

The entire city was shut down when we got the snow.

Businesses lost money.

Workers lost hours.

Kids lost schooltime, and parents had to leave work to take care of them (or even worse, bring their spawn to their jobs).

Commerce took a hit.
Click to expand...

Well then it would seem like people would benefit from a little warming. Based on what you have listed here it will be an economic boom. Not to mention the longer growing cycles meaning more food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top