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

[LV426]

I have a considerable hinterland on this board, whereas you have fuck all at best!

You have nothing other than a character you have taken careful pains to mold and create for the purpose of spamming the board.

Nothing you say about yourself is true, is it?

 

[LV426]

I am not denying anything

You are arrogantly denying that man is the cause of climate change in the face of all scientific consensus because you think smart people are conspiring against you to make you give up your gas-guzzling POS used car.

And you base that denial not on any research you have done yourself (you're far too lazy for that), but on what you glean from those who confirm your terrible instincts and poor judgment.

The same poor judgment and terrible instincts that made it easy for Trump to make you a mark.

 

[LV426]

Let me be clear on my position. I believe the climate changes. It always has. In fact it changes four times a year like clockwork. It gets warmer. It gets colder. What I don’t believe is that anything man has done has anything to do with it

And why do you think man has nothing to do with it?

Not because of any research you did yourself.

Rather, your terrible instincts and judgment led you to buy the propaganda that it isn't. The same terrible judgment and instincts that led you to vote for Trump.

The theme with you is that you have piss-poor judgment, you know you have piss-poor judgment, but your ego is far too fragile to admit it.

 

[LV426]

silly cunt.....this is about the fact you've been proven to be a fool.....tell us who caused the global warming in the three previous cycles or stfu.......

I proved you're a fool because you live your life according to a book of Stone Age fables, adapted just 400 years ago by a barely-literate English King from Scotland who wanted to give his subjects a Biblical reason to regard his royal authority as ordained by God.

You're so fucking stupid, you bought into that con.

What a rube.

 

[LV426]

Why do you think the Vikings called their new home Greenland?

They called it Greenland to trick explorers into going there instead of Iceland, which is habitable.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I don't know anything about that, but there is not one single trained climate scientist who conducts and publishes peer reviewed research on this message board forum.

Not a single one.

The rest of us have almost no scientific credibility in even discussing climate science.

We are either stuck with deferring to scientific consensus published by IPCC, NOAA, EPA, UK Met, and other prestigious scientific organizations with expertise in climate.

Or, we have to resort to parroting bullet points we read on rightwing blogs and non-peer reviewed rightwing blog science. In the hopes that parroting here what we read on rightwing websites makes us sound smart and credible.

Those are really the only two options. Not a single poster here has the training, education, and profound knowledge of the body of peer reviewed climate science out there to really position ourselves as experts. That kind of expertise only comes from eight years of university subject-matter training minimum, followed by a career of conducting and publishing original, peer reviewed research. That is how scientific credibility is earned. The best we here can hope for is to be armchair experts - poseurs - wanna bees, when it comes to credible climate science.

Can you imagine the time wasted on memorizing bad scientific talking points from obscure rightwing websites? It amounts to spending time to willfully misinform yourself. Imagine that time spent on real education, hobbies, or other forms of self improvement.

Expertise matters. Ad that is exactly why every single one of us goes to a dentist rather than a podiatrist for advice on a tooth ache.

That old Crypiss standby, the appeal to authority aka argumentum ad verecundiam. You assume, because it suits your purpose, that every climate scientist think and says the same thing. There is no area of human endeavour where that's true and climate science is certainly no exception. Indeed because of the tenuous nature of much of the data, it is arguably far more so. I can feel off many scientists that disagree with the alarmist position and in fact have done such on several occasions.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

If you are going to play that game then I can as well!!


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ndzen-on-climate-change&p=2105993#post2105993

 

[Oneuli]

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

Try to focus. Care to guess why the one with the coal dust will melt faster?

 

[Oneuli]

So why was the Arctic 6C warmer 9000 years ago, when CO2 concentration was almost half what it is now? You need to explain that before you can even attempt to understand warming cycles. Come to that why was the Arctic as warm between 1910 and 1940? The Washington Post even wrote about it in 1922.

https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/sea-ice/the-changing-arctic-monthly-weather-review-1922/

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.

Christ, you people have trouble focusing.

 

[Mason Michaels]

Sounds like it is already too late. So fuck it

Let’s all fry together.

That's probably the reality of the situation.
Cue-Disco Inferno!

 

[Oneuli]

all you have to do is look at the ice core samples.......no reason to guess......

Actually, ice core samples will only tell you the history in that one particular area. That's why paleoclimate reconstructions combine ice core samples from many different places with other proxies from areas that don't have ice-cores to sample (e.g., sediment layer microfossils, tree ring data, coral growth patterns, etc.)

So, back to the questions:

What do you think the pace of warming was during the last warming cycle on that graph, in terms of degrees of warming per century? You don't need to be exact, but be specific. Do you think the pace was around 2 degrees per century? Around one? Around a tenth of a degree per century? And what do you think the pace is now? Again, you don't need to be exact, but be specific.

 

[cancel2 2022]

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.

Christ, you people have trouble focusing.

I don't accept your premise for a start, so stick your arrogant hectoring attitude up your rear end.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually, ice core samples will only tell you the history in that one particular area. .

so now your argument is that global warming doesn't impact the whole globe?......stop guessing what the temperature change was and look at the collected data......the current warming cycle is LESS extreme than the three previous cycles......why can't you just admit that......

 

[Ralph]

The impact of runaway emissions is already upon us. Several cities in the northern U.S., such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Duluth, are already preparing to receive migrants from states like Florida, where residents are beset with increasing flooding, brutal heat waves, more severe and frequent hurricanes, sea level rise, and a worse allergy season. City planners in the aforementioned cities are already preparing by trying to figure out how to create jobs and housing for an influx of new residents.

Indications of the climate disruption refugee crisis are even more glaring in some other countries.

Large numbers of Guatemalan farmers already have to leave their land due to drought, flooding, and increasingly severe extreme weather events.

In low-lying Bangladesh, hundreds of thousands of people are already in the process of being displaced from coastal homes, and are moving into poverty-stricken areas of cities that are already unprepared to receive the influx of people. Given that 80 percent of the population of the country already lives in a flood plain, the crisis can only escalate with time as sea level rise continues to accelerate.



much more, great links:

https://truthout.org/articles/the-last-time-there-was-this-much-co2-trees-grew-at-the-south-pole/

The real question is, "Where was the land mass that is now called the south pole when these trees were alive?" With all the continental drift and possible pole shifts.....NOBOY knows, its all speculation, conjecture, and opinion, not based upon any evidence but an assumption that conditions have remained constant. Hell those trees could have been located on earth's equator when they were alive. Whenever and wherever these trees existed and produced carbon.....one thing is for certain....mankind was not responsible the earths carbon footprint.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

What do you think the pace of warming was during the last warming cycle on that graph, in terms of degrees of warming per century? You don't need to be exact, but be specific. Do you think the pace was around 2 degrees per century? Around one? Around a tenth of a degree per century? And what do you think the pace is now? Again, you don't need to be exact, but be specific.

once more, a range of roughly 9 degrees and back over a period of 50,000 years......but you knew that just from looking at the graph......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

In low-lying Bangladesh, hundreds of thousands of people are already in the process of being displaced from coastal homes, and are moving into poverty-stricken areas of cities that are already unprepared to receive the influx of people.

guess you idiots should have been dealing with that instead of pretending that people caused it and that getting rid of the US economy would have prevented it......

 

[Oneuli]

I don't accept your premise for a start, so stick your arrogant hectoring attitude up your rear end.

It's not a premise, you halfwit. It's a question. Feel free to say "sorry, I'm too cowardly and stupid to answer your question." Or feel free to answer it. But don't pretend there's a false premise embedded in it. And try to whine a little less about feeling hectored. It makes you look even more pathetic than normal.

 

[Oneuli]

so now your argument is that global warming doesn't impact the whole globe?

No, very obviously that isn't my argument. How could you possibly think that was my argument?! Bizarre stuff, really.

the current warming cycle is LESS extreme than the three previous cycles.

What do you think the pace of warming was in the three previous cycles, in terms of degrees per century? Be specific.

Look, I get it: you're afraid of embarrassing yourself when you answer that question. But look on the bright side: your cowardice has already embarrassed you so badly that you can't really add to it at this point. All you can do is redeem yourself. So, why not step up and give it a shot?

 

[cancel2 2022]

It's not a premise, you halfwit. It's a question. Feel free to say "sorry, I'm too cowardly and stupid to answer your question." Or feel free to answer it. But don't pretend there's a false premise embedded in it. And try to whine a little less about feeling hectored. It makes you look even more pathetic than normal.

Smarmy cunt!! Back on ignore.

 

[Oneuli]

once more, a range of roughly 9 degrees and back over a period of 50,000 years......but you knew that just from looking at the graph......

So, 9 degrees and back in 50,000 years. So, if we're talking a one-way trip, let's say 9 degrees one way in 25,000 years. That works out to 0.036 degrees per century, right? So, what do you think the current pace of warming is? Is it greater than or less than 0.036 degrees per century?

Here, this will help:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

Since 1975, it's a pace of about 0.15 to 0.20 degrees per century. So, if the prior warming was at about 0.036 degrees per century and the current warming is at about 0.175 degrees per century, how much more rapid is the current warming than the prior natural cycles? Roughly five times as fast, right? With current warming being VASTLY faster than anything seen previously in that record, isn't that a cause of concern?

 

[Oneuli]

Smarmy cunt!! Back on ignore.

Awww, look, I hurt the poor little sow's feelings. Now she has to cower from me to avoid getting further embarrassed. Well, at least you're good for a laugh!